ArticleTrials2025
Methodological development for core outcome sets in population health research: a mixed-methods study.
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.
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.
- Systematic Evaluation of How Indicators of Inequity and Disadvantage Are Measured and Reported in Population Health Evidence Syntheses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
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
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
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.