Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31923259›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Cauda Equina Syndrome Core Outcome Set (CESCOS): An international patient and healthcare professional consensus for research studies.

Nisaharan Srikandarajah, Adam Noble, Simon Clark, Martin Wilby, Brian J C Freeman, Michael G Fehlings, Paula R Williamson, Tony Marson

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nisaharan SrikandarajahInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9578-508X
Adam NobleDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.
Simon ClarkDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.
Martin WilbyDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.
Brian J C FreemanDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Michael G FehlingsDivision of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.
Tony MarsonInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.
University of Liverpool · GBRoyal Adelaide Hospital · AUUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cauda Equina SyndromeHealth PersonnelPatientsAdolescentAdultAgedDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeRegistriesStakeholder Participation

Identifiers

PMID31923259
PMCPMC6953762
OpenAlexW2999843613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.