ReviewBMJ open2025
Assessing 5-year follow-up of core outcome set uptake for Bronchiectasis and Hidradenitis Suppurativa: a review of trial registry entries.
Review in BMJ open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIf clinical trials measure and report the outcomes included in core outcome sets (COS) for a given condition/disease as a minimum, this has the potential to improve comparability between trials and prevent research waste. Until now, the uptake of the Bronchiectasis and Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) COS has not been assessed.This study assessed the uptake of Bronchiectasis and HS COS using a review of trial registries, with entries taken from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. This uptake assessment provides valuable information to inform COS refinement and uncover areas lacking uptake to inform further dissemination requirements.
methodsFor each trial, the outcomes included in the trial registry entry were extracted and compared with those included in the corresponding Bronchiectasis or HS COS. The Bronchiectasis COS consists of 18 outcomes, and the HS COS, 6.
resultsOf the trials registered after both COS were developed in 2018, 63% (12/19) of HS trials planned to measure the full COS, whereas for Bronchiectasis, 0% (0/24) of trials planned to measure the full COS. However, of the five priority outcomes to be measured for Bronchiectasis, 4% (1/24) of trials planned to measure all five outcomes.Both COS publications' focus was to reach consensus on what outcomes should be measured. Despite both publications referring to the Core outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, which discusses the importance of COS dissemination, implementation plans were not included in either publication.
conclusionsThe results suggest that uptake of the HS COS is relatively good, despite yearly fluctuations, whereas for Bronchiectasis, COS uptake is limited. Further research into standardised measurement tools for HS is expected to increase uptake. The focus for Bronchiectasis, however, will be to refine the COS for feasible application in clinical trials. Future COS development publications should use all resources from the COMET initiative to ensure feasible dissemination of the COS.
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.