Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32912288›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Developing consensus on core outcome domains and measurement instruments for assessing effectiveness in perioperative pain management after sternotomy, breast cancer surgery, total knee arthroplasty, and surgery related to endometriosis : The IMI-PainCare PROMPT protocol for achieving a consensus on core outcome domains.

Ulrike Kaiser, Hiltrud Liedgens, Winfried Meissner, Claudia Weinmann, Peter Zahn, Esther Pogatzki-Zahn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ulrike KaiserComprehensive Pain Center, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9701-9028
Hiltrud LiedgensMarket Access, Grünenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Winfried MeissnerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Claudia WeinmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Peter ZahnDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Palliative Care Medicine and Pain Management, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil GmbH Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Esther Pogatzki-ZahnDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, A1, 48149, Münster, Germany. pogatzki@anit.uni-muenster.de.
Jena University Hospital · DEBG University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum · DEGrünenthal Group (Germany) · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEUniversity Hospital Münster · DE

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 777500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEvidence synthesis of clinical trials requires consistent outcome assessment. For pain management after surgery, inconsistency of effectiveness assessment is still observed. A subproject of IMI-PainCare (Innovative Medicine Initiatives, www.imi-paincare.eu ) aims for identifying core outcome domains and measurement instruments for postoperative pain in four surgical fields (sternotomy, breast cancer surgery, total knee arthroplasty, and surgery related to endometriosis) in order to harmonize outcome assessment for perioperative pain management.

methodsA multifaceted process will be performed according to existing guidelines (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)). In a first step, outcome domains will be identified via systematic literature review and consented on during a 1-day consensus meeting by 10 stakeholder groups, including patient representatives, forming an IMI PROMPT consensus panel. In a second step, outcome measurement instruments regarding the beforehand consented core outcome domains and their psychometric properties will be searched for via systematic literature review and approved by COSMIN checklist for study quality and scale quality separately. In a three-step online survey, the IMI PROMPT consensus panel will vote for most suitable measurement instruments. The process is planned to be conducted between 11/2017 (systematic literature review on common outcome domains) and 3/2022 (final voting on core outcome measurement).

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBreast NeoplasmsEndometriosisConsensusFemaleHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePain ManagementSternotomySystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32912288
PMCPMC7488037
OpenAlexW3084125745

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.