ArticleJSES international2023
A modified Delphi study to identify which items should be evaluated in shoulder instability research: a first step in developing a core outcome set.
Article in JSES international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol for a modified Delphi study of ethical oversight of data science health research (DSHR).BMJ open · 2025Article
- Developing generic clinical trial animated explainer videos in the UK: results of a survey and case study.Trials · 2025Article
- Substantial variability in what is considered important in the radiological report for anterior shoulder instability: a Delphi study with Dutch musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopedic surgeons.JSES international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to identify items that healthcare providers and/or patients consider important to include in a questionnaire for clinical trials and cohort studies in shoulder instability research. This could serve as a basis to develop a core outcome set for shoulder instability research. Methods: Healthcare providers and patients were included in a panel for a modified Delphi consensus study. The study consisted of three rounds, comprising (1) identifying items, (2) rating the importance of the items, and (3) rating the importance again after seeing a summary of the results of round two. Importance was rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of the panel giving a score of 7 or higher. Results: In total, 44 healthcare providers and 30 patients completed all three rounds. Round one identified 54 items. After round three, the panel reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire, comprising re-dislocation (99%), instable feeling of the shoulder (96%), limitations during sport (93%), patient satisfaction with the shoulder (93%), fear/anxiety for re-dislocation (91%), range of motion (88%), return to old level of functioning (85%), performing daily activities (85%), return to sport (82%), return to work (82%), and trusting the shoulder (81%). Conclusion: Healthcare providers and patients reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire for shoulder instability research. These items can facilitate design and development of future clinical trials and form the basis for the development of a core outcome set.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.