ArticleBMJ open2025
Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for type 1 diabetes risk screening.
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, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of core outcomes reported in boys and men with Klinefelter syndrome.Endocrine · 2025Pooled it
- Continuous glucose monitoring as a tool in early-stage type 1 diabetes.Diabetologia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionType 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune disease that often presents with diabetic ketoacidosis at diagnosis. Since detection of type 1 diabetes risk is possible using genetic risk scores and autoantibody assays, prevention of diabetic ketoacidosis or delayed onset of type 1 diabetes may be possible and may improve outcomes. Several pilot screening programmes for type 1 diabetes risk have emerged worldwide but outcomes measured in these screening programmes are heterogeneous, making it difficult to compare and synthesise findings across studies. To improve the standardisation of outcome reporting and measurement, we aim to develop a patient-oriented core outcome set for studies of type 1 diabetes risk screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This five-step protocol was developed in alignment with the COS-STAndardised Protocol Statement and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials framework. The five steps will include: (1a) conducting a rapid literature review, (1b) gathering input on candidate outcomes from members of the public, (2) combining literature and public input to prepare a preliminary list of outcomes, (3) conducting Delphi surveys with a range of stakeholders to begin to establish consensus on outcomes, (4) holding a final consensus meeting to establish consensus on outcomes and (5) establishing the outcome measurement instruments for the core outcome set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been provided by The Hospital for Sick Children Research Ethics Board. The core outcome set will be distributed to researchers and clinicians involved in diabetes screening and clinical care, patient and family networks, research funders, journal editors, public health experts, and policymakers. Disseminated materials will be tailored to the various end users in the form of publication through academic journals, policy briefs, conferences, educational webinars, websites and social media.
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.