ArticleBMJ open2025
Developing a core outcome set for interventions in people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes reported in interventional studies for mild cognitive impairment: a scoping umbrella review to inform core outcome set development.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for blood purification in hypertriglyceridemic acute pancreatitis: a Delphi study protocol.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is no standardised national guidance on clinical management for people living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and therapeutic interventions are limited. Understanding what outcomes are important and meaningful to people living with MCI and developing a core outcome set (COS) for research and clinical practice will improve the impact of clinical research and contribute towards developing effective care pathways for MCI. This study aims to develop a COS for adults living with MCI intended for use in interventional and clinical settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The COS will be developed using a five-stage study design: (1) systematic literature search, (2) qualitative interviews, (3) evidence synthesis from stages 1 and 2, (4) two-round Delphi survey and (5) consensus meeting(s). First, we will conduct an umbrella review of existing MCI interventional studies and extract a list of outcomes. Qualitative interviews will be held with key stakeholders including individuals living with MCI, friends and family, and relevant professionals to identify further outcomes considered important. Outcomes from the review and interviews will be synthesised into a 'long list' of outcomes for potential inclusion in the COS. Two rounds of Delphi surveys followed by a consensus meeting will be used to reach stakeholder consensus on which outcomes should be included in the final COS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethical approval from the London-Queen Square Research Ethics Committee (23/PR/1580). Patient and public involvement and engagement are central to developing the COS. The results will be disseminated via conferences, peer-reviewed publications, briefing notes to key agencies, to the public via social media and blog posts and directly to stakeholders who participate in the project. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative 2117; PROSPERO registration: CRD42023452514.
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.