Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33234639›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.

Alice Lee, Anna Davies, Amber E Young

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Core Outcome Set for Stillbirth Care: An International Consensus Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  9. Core outcome domains forERJ open research · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Alice LeeAcademic Foundation Doctor, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8492-837X
Anna DaviesSenior Research Fellow, Centre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Amber E YoungConsultant Paediatric Anaesthetist and Lead Children's Burns Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK amber.young1@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0001-7205-492X

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2016-09-031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Protocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Delphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.

resultsOf 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.

conclusionsThere is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019138519.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueHealth PersonnelClinical Trials as TopicConsensusDatabases, FactualHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcomecore outcome setDelphiinternationallow and middle income countriespatient and public involvement

Identifiers

PMID33234639
PMCPMC7684826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.