ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2026
Core outcome set for liver trauma: a consensus approach using modified Delphi methodology.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2026. 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.
- Major liver necrosis after blunt trauma.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Liver trauma management has evolved over recent decades, shifting from primarily operative to algorithmic approaches incorporating initial non-operative management alongside operative intervention for severe injuries. Inconsistent core outcome measures between studies hamper meaningful clinical research and evidence synthesis. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for liver trauma research to standardize outcome reporting and improve study comparability. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus methodology after COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) and COS-STAD (Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development) guidelines was employed and twenty trauma surgery experts were recruited through purposive sampling of high-impact publications and professional networks. Round 1 collected free-text outcome suggestions. Round 2 used a 9-point Likert scale rating of those previously identified outcomes. Consensus was defined as ≥70% rating outcomes as critically important (7-9) and ≤15% as unimportant (1-3). Intraclass correlation (ICC) assessed agreement. Round 3 involved reprioritization of non-consensus outcomes. Results: All 20 experts completed three rounds (95% response rate). From 102 initial suggestions, 41 unique outcomes were identified. By consensus, 12 outcomes were prioritized spanning four domains: operative decision-making, non-operative management success, hepatic complications, and healthcare utilization-related outcomes. The ICC was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.94), indicating strong inter-rater reliability. Conclusions: This rigorously developed COS for liver trauma provides standardized outcomes to guide future research and improve cross-study comparability. Adoption of these outcomes may enhance reporting consistency and facilitate evidence synthesis in liver trauma research. Study type: Consensus development study (modified Delphi). Level of evidence: V.
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.