ReviewBMJ open2020
Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review.
Review in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- In-depth qualitative interviews identified barriers and facilitators that influenced chief investigators' use of core outcome sets in randomised controlled trials.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Trial
- Risk-Stratified Interventional Management and Surgical Decision-Making in Primary Glaucoma.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Developing a Core Outcome Measurement Set for Adult ICU Patients, the CoreMS-ICU-A Protocol.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Outcomes of older adult physical activity participation that matter to health care professionals.Innovation in aging · 2026Article
- Assessing uptake of the macular degeneration core outcome set in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Establishing a core outcome set for creatine transporter deficiency and guanidinoacetate methyltransferase deficiency.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: aligning clinical trials with patient priorities.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Review
- Article
- Assessing the uptake of infertility core outcome set in IVF randomized controlled trials.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Acceptability and perceived barriers to adoption of the core outcome set for maternal and neonatal health research and surveillance during emerging and ongoing epidemic threats (MNH-EPI-COS): An online survey.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Protocol for a novel approach to developing a single pan-specialty 'meta-core outcome set': An example from the field of surgical oncology.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Assessing the Uptake of the Lung Cancer Core Outcome Set: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.JTO clinical and research reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Mechanical ventilation core outcome set uptake in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Implementation of the HOME core outcome set for clinical trials of atopic eczema-barriers and opportunities: the HOME IX meeting report.Archives of dermatological research · 2023Article
- Uptake of the core outcome set on polycystic ovary syndrome before and after its publication.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Key outcomes in childbirth: Development of a perinatal core outcome set for management of labor and delivery at or near term.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews ('reviews') are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews ('reviews') and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.
methodsA cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.
resultsIn the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.
conclusionsSystematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.
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.