SynthesisBMJ open2021
Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Influencing Consultant Knee Surgeons' Decision Making in Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Injury Management in Athletes: An International Delphi Study.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Do patients and the public understand and feel engaged and valued after reading outcome set study invitations? A UK qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Codeveloping a Set of Quality of Care Indicators for People Living With Multiple Long-Term Conditions in Primary Care: Protocol for a Modified RAND/UCLA Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Standardised reporting framework for nutrition and growth in preterm nutrition studies: the NutriGrow Delphi study.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Developing Consumer Consensus on Remote Assessment and Management of Physical Function in Older Adults (RAMP): International Modified Delphi Process.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Establishing standards of care for forensic mental health: an international Delphi consensus-building study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Identifying social prescribing core outcomes using a Delphi approach: findings and future directions.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Participants' experiences with the Delphi method: an online evaluation of a three-round Delphi across German-speaking countries.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Consensus on clinical outcome measures for lumbar spinal stenosis: recommendations from the ISSLS lumbar spinal stenosis taskforce.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Core outcome domains forERJ open research · 2025Article
- The core outcome set for studies on feminizing genital gender-affirming surgery: findings from the GenderCOS project.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Article
- The participation of lifeworld experts in Delphi processes: A reflection on method and practice.MethodsX · 2025Review
- A standardized set of metrics to assess the quality of anesthesia, perioperative care, and acute pain management in Canada: a multidisciplinary modified Delphi study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the design and conduct of core outcome set (COS) studies that have included patients as participants, exploring how study characteristics might impact their response rates.
designSystematic review of COS studies published between 2015 and 2019 that included more than one patient, carer or representative as participants (hereafter referred to as patients for brevity) in scoring outcomes in a Delphi.
resultsThere were variations in the design and conduct of COS studies that included patients in the Delphi process, including differing: scoring and feedback systems, approaches to recruiting patients, length of time between rounds, use of reminders, incentives, patient and public involvement, and piloting. Minimal reporting of participant characteristics and a lack of translation of Delphi surveys into local languages were found. Additionally, there were indications that studies that recruited patients through treatment centres had higher round two response rates than studies recruiting through patient organisations.
conclusionsVariability was striking in how COS Delphi surveys were designed and conducted to include patient participants and other stakeholders. Future research is needed to explore what motivates patients to take part in COS studies and what factors influence COS developer recruitment strategies. Improved reporting would increase knowledge of how methods affect patient participation in COS Delphi studies.
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.