Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34924001›Full record

Trial reportTrials2021

A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists.

Chiara Bellucci, Karen Hughes, Elaine Toomey, Paula R Williamson, Karen Matvienko-Sikar

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Chiara BellucciSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Karen HughesMRC Hub for Trials Methodology Research Network, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Elaine ToomeySchool of Allied Health, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Karen Matvienko-SikarSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. Karen.msikar@ucc.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2777-6581

Funding

Health Research Board HRB ARPP-2018- A 011Health Research Board Trial Methodology Research Network Student Summer Scholarship 2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCore outcome sets (COS) are standardised sets of outcomes, which represent the minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials. COS can enhance comparability across health trials by reducing heterogeneity of outcome measurement and reporting and potentially minimising selective outcome reporting. Examining what researchers involved in trials know and think about COS is essential to increase awareness and promote COS uptake. The aim of this study is therefore to examine clinical trialists' knowledge, perceptions and experiences of COS.

methodsAn online survey design was used. Participants were clinical trialists, operationalised for the current study as researchers named as the contact person on a trial registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Trial repository between 1 January 2019 and 21 July 2020. Survey items assessed clinical trialists' familiarity with and understanding of COS, along with experiences of COS use and development.

resultsOf 1913 clinical trialists contacted to participate, 62 (3%) completed the survey. Forty (65%) participants were familiar with COS and, of those familiar with COS, 21 (55%) had been involved in a trial that used a COS. Of clinical trialists who used COS in a trial(s), less than half (n = 9, 41%) reported that all COS outcomes were used. The main barriers to using COS are poor knowledge about COS (n = 43, 69%) and difficulties identifying relevant COS (n = 42, 68%). Clinical trialists also reported perceptions of COS as restrictive and often containing too many outcomes. The main enablers to using COS are clear understanding (n = 51, 82%) and perceived importance of COS (n = 44, 71%).

conclusionsEnhancing clinical trialists' use of all COS outcomes is needed to reduce outcome heterogeneity and enhance comparability across trial findings. Enhancing awareness of COS importance among researchers and funders is needed to ensure that COS are developed and used by clinical trialists. Education and training may further promote awareness and understanding of COS.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareHumansAttitudesCore outcome setsKnowledgeTrialsUptake

Identifiers

PMID34924001
PMCPMC8684586

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.