Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35264343›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Which outcomes should be used in future bronchiolitis trials? Developing a bronchiolitis core outcome set using a systematic review, Delphi survey and a consensus workshop.

A Rosala-Hallas, Ashley P Jones, Paula R Williamson, Emma Bedson, Vanessa Compton, Ricardo M Fernandes, David Lacy, Mark David Lyttle, Matthew Peak, Kentigern Thorburn and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Respiratory support in paediatric patients with bronchiolitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Efficacy and safety of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

A Rosala-HallasLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Ashley P JonesLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5253-730X
Paula R WilliamsonHealth Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Emma BedsonLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Vanessa ComptonPaediatric Intensive Care Unit, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Ricardo M FernandesDepartment of Pediatrics, Santa Maria Hospital, Lisbon Academic Medical Centre, Lisbon, Portugal.
David LacyDepartment of Paediatrics, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Wirral, Merseyside, UK.
Mark David LyttleEmergency Department, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8634-7210
Matthew PeakClinical Research Division, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Kentigern ThorburnPaediatric Intensive Care Unit, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Kerry WoolfallInstitute of Population, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Clare Van MiertSchool of Nursing and Allied Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Paul S McNamaraDepartment of Child Health (University of Liverpool), Institute in the Park, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK Mcnamp@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future clinical trials in bronchiolitis. We wanted to find out which outcomes are important to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to parents and which outcomes should be prioritised for use in future clinical trials. DESIGN AND

settingThe study used a systematic review, workshops and interviews, a Delphi survey and a final consensus workshop.

resultsThirteen parents and 45 HCPs took part in 5 workshops; 15 other parents were also separately interviewed. Fifty-six items were identified from the systematic review, workshops and interviews. Rounds one and two of the Delphi survey involved 299 and 194 participants, respectively. Sixteen outcomes met the criteria for inclusion within the COS. The consensus meeting was attended by 10 participants, with representation from all three stakeholder groups. Nine outcomes were added, totalling 25 outcomes to be included in the COS.

conclusionWe have developed the first parent and HCP consensus on a COS for bronchiolitis in a hospital setting. The use of this COS will ensure outcomes in future bronchiolitis trials are important and relevant, and will enable the trial results to be compared and combined. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN75766048.

Indexed as

BronchiolitisOutcome Assessment, Health CareDelphi TechniqueHumansResearch DesignTreatment Outcomebronchiolitiscore outcome setspaediatrics

Identifiers

PMID35264343
PMCPMC8915376

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.