ArticlePloS one2020
Cauda Equina Syndrome Core Outcome Set (CESCOS): An international patient and healthcare professional consensus for research studies.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- The implications of surgery on sexual dysfunction in patients with lumbar disc herniation with cauda equina syndrome: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Analysis of outcome reporting in common peroneal neuropathy studies: a systematic review of the literature.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Pooled it
- Definition and surgical timing in cauda equina syndrome-An updated systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Qualitative Assessment of Sexual Health Impairment in Women Affected by Disk Herniation.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- A qualitative study of experiencing cauda equina syndrome and its aftercare in the UK.Spinal cord · 2025Article
- A core outcome set for pituitary surgery research: an international delphi consensus study.Pituitary · 2025Article
- Article
- Identification and Assessment of Outcome Measurement Instruments in Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- Presentation, management, and outcomes of cauda equina syndrome up to one year after surgery, using clinician and participant reporting: A multi-centre prospective cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2023Article
- Article
- Secondary analysis of data from a core outcome set for burns demonstrated the need for involvement of lower income countries.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for stillbirth care research (iCHOOSE Study).BMJ open · 2022Article
- An international core outcome set for evaluating interventions to improve informed consent to clinical trials: The ELICIT Study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCauda Equina Syndrome (CES) is an emergency condition that requires acute intervention and can lead to permanent neurological deficit in working age adults. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported by a research study within a specific disease area. There is significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting for CES, which does not allow data synthesis between studies. The hypothesis is that a COS for CES can be developed for future research studies using patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) as key stakeholders. METHODS AND
findingsQualitative semi-structured interviews with CES patients were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using NVivo to identify the outcomes of importance. These were combined with the outcomes obtained from a published systematic literature review of CES patients. The outcomes were grouped into a list of 37, for rating through two rounds of an international Delphi survey according to pre-set criteria. The Delphi survey had an overall response rate of 63% and included 172 participants (104 patients, 68 HCPs) from 14 countries who completed both rounds. Thirteen outcomes reached consensus at the end of the Delphi survey and there was no attrition bias detected. The results were discussed at an international consensus meeting attended by 34 key stakeholders (16 patients and 18 HCPs) from 8 countries. A further three outcomes were agreed to be included. There was no selection bias detected at the consensus meeting. There are 16 outcomes in total in the CESCOS. DISCUSSION: This is the first study in the literature that has determined the core outcomes in CES using a transparent international consensus process involving healthcare professionals and CES patients as key stakeholders. This COS is recommended as the most important outcomes to be reported in any research study investigating CES outcomes and will allow evidence synthesis in CES.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.