SynthesisPloS one2025
Assessment of the methodological quality of studies on core outcome sets for respiratory diseases: A systematic review and meta-research study.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundWith increasing attention to core outcome sets (COS), the number of studies on COS for respiratory diseases (COS-RD) is on the rise. However, the methodological quality is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a study to assess the methodological quality of studies on COS-RD.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for study protocols or original studies on COS-RD about adults, from their inception to February 23, 2024. The COMET database and Chinese databases (including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Chongqing VIP database, and China Biology Medicine) were also searched as a supplement. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol (COS-STAP) statement, the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations, and the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) statement.
resultsA total of 27 articles (five study protocols and 22 original studies, 26 studies) were included in this study. For the assessment of study protocols using the COS-STAP statement, the item with the lowest complete reporting rate was "missing data" (Item 9, 40.0%), while "description how outcomes may be dropped/combined, with reasons" (Item 5b, 60.0%) and "dissemination" (Item 11, 60.0%) had relatively low complete reporting rates. For the assessment of original studies using the COS-STAD recommendations, the item with the highest non-reporting rate was "care was taken to avoid ambiguity of language used in the list of outcomes" (Item 11, 45.5%), while "the population(s) covered by COS" (Item 3, 31.8%) and "the intervention(s) covered by COS" (Item 4, 31.8%) had relatively high non-reporting rate. When using the COS-STAR statement to assess the original studies, the item with the lowest complete reporting rate was "protocol deviations" (Item 11, 13.6%), while "describe how outcomes were dropped/combined, with reasons (if applicable)" (Item 6b, 36.4%), "participants" (Item 5, 40.9%), "ethics and consent" (Item 10, 54.5%), "protocol/registry entry" (Item 14, 63.6%), and "outcome scoring" (Item 8, 63.6%) had relatively low complete reporting rates.
conclusionThe methodological quality of studies on COS-RD needs to be further improved. The appropriate use of aforementioned international reporting standards can advance the methodological quality and reporting transparency of studies on COS-RD.
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.