Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34782342›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Which outcomes are most important to measure in patients with COVID-19 and how and when should these be measured? Development of an international standard set of outcomes measures for clinical use in patients with COVID-19: a report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) COVID-19 Working Group.

William H Seligman, Luz Fialho, Nick Sillett, Christina Nielsen, Farhala M Baloch, Philip Collis, Ingel K M Demedts, Marcelo P Fleck, Maiara A Floriani, Lucinda E K Gabriel and 17 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Content validity and psychometric properties of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO PlusQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

27 authors.

William H SeligmanInternational Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, Boston, Massachusetts, USA w.seligman@ichom.org.ORCID 0000-0001-6061-7342
Luz FialhoInternational Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Nick SillettInternational Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Christina NielsenInternational Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Farhala M BalochThe Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Philip CollisNIHR, London, UK.
Ingel K M DemedtsAZ Delta Campus Brugsesteenweg, Roeselare, West-Vlaanderen, Belgium.
Marcelo P FleckUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Maiara A FlorianiHospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Lucinda E K GabrielKing's Health Partners, London, London, UK.
Joel J GagnierUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Anju KeetharuthThe University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8889-6806
Ana LondralValue for Health CoLAB, Lisboa, Portugal.
Ingvar I L LudwigHospital do Coracao, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos LumbrerasUniversidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Alejandro Moscoso DazaClinica del Country, Bogota, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-1616-2069
Nasreen MuhammadThe Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Gisele A Nader BastosHospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Christine W OwenNHS Wales, Cardiff, UK.
John H PowersThe George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Anne-Marie RussellUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0468-3537
Michaela K SmithMediclinic Southern Africa, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Tracy Y-P WangDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Evan K WongProvidence Health Care, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Douglas C WoodhouseUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Eyal ZimlichmanSheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Kees BrinkmanOLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread morbidity and mortality with the consequences expected to be felt for many years. Significant variation exists in the care even of similar patients with COVID-19, including treatment practices within and between institutions. Outcome measures vary among clinical trials on the same therapies. Understanding which therapies are of most value is not possible unless consensus can be reached on which outcomes are most important to measure. Furthermore, consensus on the most important outcomes may enable patients to monitor and track their care, and may help providers to improve the care they offer through quality improvement. To develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes for clinical care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a working group (WG) of 28 volunteers, including health professionals, patients and patient representatives.

designA list of outcomes important to patients and professionals was generated from a systematic review of the published literature using the MEDLINE database, from review of outcomes being measured in ongoing clinical trials, from a survey distributed to patients and patient networks, and from previously published ICHOM standard sets in other disease areas. Using an online-modified Delphi process, the WG selected outcomes of greatest importance.

resultsThe outcomes considered by the WG to be most important were selected and categorised into five domains: (1) functional status and quality of life, (2) mental functioning, (3) social functioning, (4) clinical outcomes and (5) symptoms. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, clinical factors and treatment-related factors.

conclusionImplementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of care to patients with COVID-19. Their consistent definition and collection could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research.

Indexed as

COVID-19Quality of LifeHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19international health servicesquality in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID34782342
PMCPMC8593274

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.