Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41454395›Full record

ArticleTrials2025

Methodological development for core outcome sets in population health research: a mixed-methods study.

Ameeta Retzer, Peymane Adab, Melanie Calvert, Niyah Campbell, Justin Varney, Paul Fisher, Dyna Arhin-Tenkorang, Joseph Merriman, Isobel M Harris, Foram Khatsuria and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Ameeta RetzerCentre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. a.retzer@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4156-8386
Peymane AdabNIHR School for Public Health Research, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Melanie CalvertCentre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Niyah CampbellNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) West Midlands Applied Research Collaboration (ARC), Birmingham, UK.
Justin VarneyBirmingham City Council, Birmingham, UK.
Paul FisherSandwell Council, Oldbury, UK.
Dyna Arhin-TenkorangBirmingham City Council, Birmingham, UK.
Joseph MerrimanBirmingham City Council, Birmingham, UK.
Isobel M HarrisDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Foram KhatsuriaDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Pamela NayyarNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) West Midlands Applied Research Collaboration (ARC), Birmingham, UK.
Chloe GayWest Northamptonshire Council, Northampton, UK.
Kate JollyNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) West Midlands Applied Research Collaboration (ARC), Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Public Health Research Programme NIHR135211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCore outcome sets (COS) aid evidence synthesis and promote relevance of and reduce waste from trials. COS are commonly used in biomedical research settings, but their application in population health research is less established. There is growing interest in using COS in population health trials, but population health interventions are often complex and involve a wide range of stakeholders, differing from biomedical research. Current guidance for COS development was originally intended for effectiveness trials in biomedical research, and COS implementation in trials is limited. This exploratory research formulates COS methodology for use in population health research trials, identifies priority topics for COS development, and considers how to promote COS use once developed.

methodsThree mixed-method work packages (WP) are as follows: (1) Public health evidence review to identify outcome heterogeneity and reporting of indicators of inequality and disadvantage, (2) stakeholder data review of COS on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative database and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guidance, and (3) semi-structured focus group discussions via an expert workshop exploring how routinely collected data can be considered in population health core outcome sets, differences in population health research that COS methodology would need to accommodate, barriers and facilitators to COS uptake applicable to population health research, and areas of population health research that would benefit from COS development.

resultsIn WP1, 264 population health Cochrane reviews were identified and analysed. Eighty reviews recommended outcome standardisation, including 13 specifically recommending COS development. In WP2, 50 non-population health COS, 22 population health COS, and 61 NICE Public Health guidance documents used an average of 7, 4.7, and 6.1 stakeholder groups, respectively. The WP3 workshop involved 41 participants. Six themes (COS development, routine data collection, population health research, stakeholders, methodology, COS uptake) were identified. Five methodological recommendations were formulated.

conclusionsThis study proposes how COS should be developed for use in population health research, identifies areas for COS development, recommends COS implementation strategies for population health research trials, and explores novel applications of COS methodology such as to standardise routinely collected health and non-health data often used in population health trials. The study findings complement existing COS guidance, promoting a consistent and rigorous approach to COS development for use in population health trials. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the University of Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (ERN 21-1821) and registered at Research Registry (researchregistry7693, 28.02.2022).

Indexed as

Endpoint DeterminationPopulation HealthResearch DesignConsensusEvidence-Based MedicineFocus GroupsHumansStakeholder ParticipationCore outcome setMethodologyPublic healthTrials

Identifiers

PMID41454395
PMCPMC12849435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.