ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2024
Use, knowledge, & attitudes on core outcome sets among trialists & systematic reviewers in India: A survey.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of a Core Outcome Measurement Set for studies of community pharmacist-led medication reviews in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives Core Outcome Sets (COS) are consensus-derived standardized outcomes that improve the transparency, consistency, homogeneity, and usefulness of outcomes. While COS are being increasingly developed, not much is known about their awareness, use, knowledge, and attitudes among trialists and systematic reviewers. This study aimed to examine the use, knowledge, and attitudes about COS among clinical trialists and systematic reviewers in India. Methods We conducted an anonymous online survey between August 2023 to November 2023, using a questionnaire hosted on REDCap including trialists and/or systematic reviewers as participants. The survey tool evaluated awareness, use and attitudes on COS, including through a couple of open-ended questions. Results A total of 523 trialists/ systematic reviewers participated in this survey. Of these, only 51.4 per cent indicated that they were aware of COS. Only 13.9 per cent trialists and 10.5 per cent systematic reviewers were using them, while mere 6 per cent had been involved in COS development. Lack of available COS for conditions of interest in an Indian context was identified as one of the barriers in its uptake. Even among participants who were aware, many were not clear about COS concepts, and although they expressed positive attitudes about the benefits of COS usage, they also indicated that they perceived COS as restrictive, costly, blocking innovation, and increasing patient burden. We identified health conditions relevant to India, where there is no COS available or where COS is present but were mentioned to be not relevant or valid for the Indian context. Interpretation & conclusions As per our knowledge, this study is the largest survey on this domain globally. Through this study several barriers for enhancing COS awareness and uptake were identified indicating the need for resources and systematic efforts to address these barriers in India and globally. We also identify COS which need to be developed or updated to be relevant to Indian context.
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.