ArticleBMJ open2026
Protocol for a scoping review of interventional trials in complex regional pain syndrome: evaluation of adherence to the core outcome set, SPIRIT-PRO and CONSORT-PRO guidelines.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComplex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating chronic pain condition that severely reduces quality of life. Physiotherapy is a key component of management; however, high-quality evidence to inform optimal practice is limited. Variability in outcome measurement and poor reporting quality may hinder the ability to synthesise findings and inform best practice.Although international guidelines for reporting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been developed to address these issues and a CRPS Core Outcome Set (COS) has been published, the extent to which they have been adopted in CRPS research remains unclear. This protocol describes a scoping review, which aims to explore whether randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions for adults with CRPS adhere to COS recommendations and comply with PRO reporting guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The design of the scoping review will align with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews will be used to guide reporting. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, CENTRAL and PsycINFO will be searched in addition to the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP). Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened by two independent reviewers. Data extraction and synthesis will follow, with discrepancies resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Adherence to the CRPS COS will be assessed by mapping trial outcomes to COS domains, and compliance with Standard Protocol Items Recommendations for Interventional Trials: Patient-Reported Outcome Extension (SPIRIT-PRO) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials: PRO Extension (CONSORT-PRO) guidelines will be evaluated against checklist items. Data will be summarised descriptively, with subgroup analysis comparing trials initiated before and after COS publication. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as the study involves no collection of primary data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and concise reports prepared for key stakeholders. REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered on Open Science Framework and is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BFH82.
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.