Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34972165›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

How are trial outcomes prioritised by stakeholders from different regions? Analysis of an international Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in gastric cancer surgery.

Bilal Alkhaffaf, Aleksandra Metryka, Jane M Blazeby, Anne-Marie Glenny, Paula R Williamson, Iain A Bruce, GASTROS International Working Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Bilal AlkhaffafDepartment of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5751-1846
Aleksandra MetrykaPaediatric ENT Department, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9871-5167
Jane M BlazebyCentre for Surgical Research and Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Anne-Marie GlennyDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool and a Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Iain A BrucePaediatric ENT Department, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
GASTROS International Working Group
University of Manchester · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2015-08-023Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternational stakeholder participation is important in the development of core outcome sets (COS). Stakeholders from varying regions may value health outcomes differently. Here, we explore how region, health income and participant characteristics influence prioritisation of outcomes during development of a COS for gastric cancer surgery trials (the GASTROS study).

methods952 participants from 55 countries participating in a Delphi survey during COS development were eligible for inclusion. Recruits were grouped according to region (East or West), country income classification (high and low-to-middle income) and other characteristics (e.g. patients; age, sex, time since surgery, mode of treatment, surgical approach and healthcare professionals; clinical experience). Groups were compared with respect to how they categorised 56 outcomes identified as potentially important to include in the final COS ('consensus in', 'consensus out', 'no consensus'). Outcomes categorised as 'consensus in' or 'consensus out' by all 3 stakeholder groups would be automatically included in or excluded from the COS respectively.

resultsIn total, 13 outcomes were categorised 'consensus in' (disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence of cancer, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, all-cause complications, intraoperative complications, anaesthetic complications, anastomotic complications, multiple organ failure, and bleeding), 13 'consensus out' and 31 'no consensus'. There was little variation in prioritisation of outcomes by stakeholders from Eastern or Western countries and high or low-to-middle income countries. There was little variation in outcome prioritisation within either health professional or patient groups.

conclusionOur study suggests that there is little variation in opinion within stakeholder groups when participant region and other characteristics are considered. This finding may help COS developers when designing their Delphi surveys and recruitment strategies. Further work across other clinical fields is needed before broad recommendations can be made.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueStomach NeoplasmsAgedClinical Trials as TopicConsensusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34972165
PMCPMC8719722
OpenAlexW4205695368

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.