ArticleBJS open2025
Meta-core outcome set for randomized trials and clinical practice for curative surgical oncology: patient and healthcare consensus statement.
Article in BJS 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe development and use of core outcome sets (COSs) have the potential to inform best practice in healthcare treatment options by facilitating data synthesis across studies. In surgical oncology, eight cancer-specific COSs exist, and these overlap in content. The development of a meta-COS that includes the core outcomes from existing cancer data sets would be applicable, as a minimum, across all cancer types in surgical oncology for use in effectiveness trials and clinical practice.
methodsThe process of developing a meta-COS included identification of the existing COS and their discussion with 3 different stakeholder focus groups (surgeons/oncologists, other healthcare professionals, and patients and carers). Outcomes were identified through a review of the literature and registered clinical trials. Stakeholders representing healthcare professionals (surgeons/oncologists and others) were recruited from national societies, regional cancer networks, and local trial centres, whereas patients and carers were recruited using independent representative organizations. The aim was to include at least two individuals from each group for the ten common cancers requiring surgery. These ten cancer types were regarded as the commonest based on global incidence in World Cancer Research Fund data. An agreed-upon list of outcomes was scored in a two-round online Delphi survey (March-May 2025). The results of this survey were discussed and ratified at an online consensus meeting (June 2025) by Delphi participants who completed both rounds, members of the stakeholder groups, and patients. The 80% threshold defined consensus.
resultsForty-five participants completed both survey rounds, and 15 participated in the consensus meeting. Of 317 outcomes initially identified, 35 were discussed with stakeholders, 32 were scored in Delphi rounds, and consensus was achieved on eight core outcomes to include in the surgical oncology meta-COS: overall survival, disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, death related to surgery, delay to further treatment, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, and serious adverse events.
conclusionThis meta-COS for surgical oncology offers a standard set of outcomes to be used in surgical oncology studies and clinical practice, regardless of cancer type.
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.