ArticlePloS one2020
Development of a core outcome set for use in community-based bipolar trials-A qualitative study and modified Delphi.
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 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review.Pediatric research · 2022Pooled it
- Exploring the Personal Recovery Construct in Bipolar Disorders: Definition, Usage and Measurement. A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Developing a core outcome set for generalized anxiety disorder during the perinatal period: Identifying core treatment outcomes in perinatal anxiety.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- 5 Years of bipolar disorder conversations on Reddit: Methods, key topics and future directions.PloS one · 2026Article
- "Inclusivity requires an active effort": building an inclusive and diverse space when engaging people with lived and living experience and caregivers in mental health and substance use health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Article
- Development of Priority Outcome Domains for Community Mental Health Research via Consensus Among Multiple Stakeholders: Online Delphi Study in Japan.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
- Development of a core outcome set for pharmacological interventions in osteoporosis among patients with diabetes mellitus: an international consensus study protocol.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- A toolkit for capturing a representative and equitable sample in health research.Nature medicine · 2023Article
- Exploring the impact of engagement in mental health and substance use research: A scoping review and thematic analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Evaluation of randomized controlled trials: a primer and tutorial for mental health researchers.Trials · 2023Article
- Research evidence and implementation gaps in the engagement of people with lived experience in mental health and substance use research: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Consensus development of priority outcome domains for community mental health cares by multiple stakeholders: Protocol for an online Delphi study in Japan.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2021Article
- Outcomes frequently specified in Cochrane reviews of community-based psychosocial interventions for adults with severe mental illness: A systematic search and narrative synthesis.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2021Review
- Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for studies of pregnant women with pre-existing multimorbidity.BMJ open · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA core outcome set (COS) is a standardised collection of outcomes to be collected and reported in all trials within a research area. A COS can reduce reporting bias and facilitate evidence synthesis. This is currently unavailable for use in community-based bipolar trials. This research aimed to develop such a COS, with input from a full range of stakeholders.
methodsA co-production approach was used throughout. A longlist of outcomes was derived from focus groups with people with a bipolar diagnosis and carers, interviews with healthcare professionals and a rapid review of outcomes listed in bipolar trials on the Cochrane database. An expert panel with personal and/or professional experience of bipolar participated in a modified Delphi process and the COS was finalised at a consensus meeting.
resultsFifty participants rated the importance of each outcome. Sixty-six outcomes were included in Round 1 of the questionnaire; 13 outcomes were added by Round 1 participants and were rated in Round 2. Seventy-six percent of participants (n = 38) returned to Round 2 and 60 outcomes, including 4 outcomes added by participants in Round 1, received a rating of 7-9 by >70% and 1-3 by <25% of the sample. Fourteen participants finalised a COS containing 11 outcomes at the consensus meeting: personal recovery; connectedness; clinical recovery of bipolar symptoms; mental health and wellbeing; physical health; self-monitoring and management; medication effects; quality of life; service outcomes; experience of care; and use of coercion.
conclusionsThis COS is recommended for use in community-based bipolar trials to ensure stakeholder-relevant outcomes, facilitate data synthesis, and transparent reporting. The COS includes guidance notes for each outcome to allow the identification of suitable measurement instruments. Further validation is recommended for use with a wide range of communities and to achieve standardised measurement.
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.