Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35209864›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2022

A core outcome set for randomised controlled trials of physical activity interventions: development and challenges.

Helen Crocker, Michele Peters, Charlie Foster, Nick Black, Ray Fitzpatrick

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Reporting of Accelerometry in Health Research: A Scoping Review of Current Guidance.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
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.

Helen CrockerNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. Helen.Crocker@ndph.ox.ac.uk.
Michele PetersNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Charlie FosterCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Social Science Complex, 8 Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, UK.
Nick BlackQuality Safety and Outcomes Policy Research Unit, Kent, UK.
Ray FitzpatrickNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCore outcome sets are standardised sets of outcomes that should be collected and reported for all clinical trials. They have been widely developed and are increasingly influential in clinical research, but despite this, their use in public health has been limited to date. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set for public health trials evaluating interventions to promote physical activity in the general adult population.

methodsThe core outcome set was developed using a three-stage approach: stage one: a review of literature to identify potential domains for inclusion in the core outcome set; stage two: a Delphi survey was carried out to reach consensus about which outcome domains to include in the core outcome set; and stage three: a second Delphi survey was conducted to determine how best to measure the outcome domains included in the core outcome set.

resultsA classification of 13 outcome domains of physical activity was developed (stage one). Twenty people completed round one of the first Delphi survey (stage two), reaching a consensus to include two domains in the core outcome set, 'device-based level of physical activity' (80.0%, n = 16) and 'health-related quality of life' (70.0%, n = 14). No further consensus on the remaining outcome domains was reached in round two. Nineteen people completed the second Delphi survey (stage three). Participants rated the accelerometer (mean rating = 3.89, on a scale of 1 (do not recommend) to 5 (highly recommend)) as the best device to measure level of physical activity, and the EQ-5D (73.7%, n = 14) as the most appropriate measure of health-related quality of life.

conclusionsThis study has made progress towards the development of a core outcome set for use in physical activity trials, however, there was limited consensus about which domains to include. The development of the core outcome set was challenged by the need for trial-specific outcomes, and the complexities of collecting, processing and reporting device-based data.

Indexed as

ExerciseQuality of LifeAdultConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeAccelerometerCore outcome setDevice-based measurementMeasuresPhysical activity

Identifiers

PMID35209864
PMCPMC8866915

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.