ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Awareness and experiences on core outcome set development and use amongst stakeholders from low- and middle- income countries: An online survey.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient perceptions of outcomes used to evaluate in-hospital handover interventions: a rapid review of qualitative data.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Development of a set of core outcome measures for ambulant children with cerebral palsy after lower limb orthopaedic surgery.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Exploring Patient, Parent and Clinician Views of Outcomes for Family-Centered Care in Neonatal Settings: A Qualitative Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Uptake of core outcome sets in paediatric clinical trials: a protocol.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- A meta-core outcome set for stillbirth prevention and bereavement care following stillbirth in LMIC.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Acceptability and perceived barriers to adoption of the core outcome set for maternal and neonatal health research and surveillance during emerging and ongoing epidemic threats (MNH-EPI-COS): An online survey.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Use, knowledge, & attitudes on core outcome sets among trialists & systematic reviewers in India: A survey.The Indian journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Experiences of core outcome set developers on including stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries: An online survey.PLOS global public health · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Harmonization of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials can reduce research waste and enhance research translation. One of the ways to standardize measurement is through development and use of core outcome sets (COS). There is limited involvement of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders in COS development and use. This study explores the level of awareness and experiences of LMIC stakeholders in the development and use of COS. We conducted an online survey of LMIC stakeholders. Three existing COS (pre-eclampsia, COVID-19, palliative care) were presented as case scenarios, and respondents asked to state (with reason(s)) if they would or would not use the COS if they were working in that area. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Of 81 respondents, 26 had COS experience, 9 of whom had been involved in COS development. Personal research interests and prevalence of disease are key drivers for initiation/participation in a given COS project. Most respondents would use the COS for pre-eclampsia (18/26) and COVID-19 (19/26) since the development process included key stakeholders. More than half of the respondents were not sure or would not use the palliative care COS as they felt stakeholder engagement was limited and it was developed for a different resource setting. Respondents reported that use of COS can be limited by (i) feasibility of measuring the outcomes in the COS, (ii) knowledge on the usefulness and availability of COS and (iii) lack of wide stakeholder engagement in the COS development process including having patients and carers in the development process. To ensure the development and use of COS in LMICs, collaborations are essential in awareness raising on COS utility, training, and COS development. The COS also needs to be made accessible in locally understandable languages and feasible to measure in LMICs.
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.