Cited by 12Delphi Technique in ResearchTrauma Management and DiagnosisPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An international multi-stakeholder delphi consensus exercise to develop a core outcomes set (COS) for surgical fixation of rib fractures

Abstract

Introduction A patient-relevant, focused Core Outcome Set (COS) is essential to the design of clinical trials dealing with chest wall trauma, in order to maximise quality of evidence regarding impact of interventions and to reduce research waste. Methods Outcome measures were collated by way of systematic review and entered into a three round Delphi consensus completed anonymously online. Participants were international clinicians and allied health professionals (AHP) involved in the treatment of rib fractures as well as patients who had experienced severe chest trauma. Consensus thresholds for statements were defined a priori as a group rating of more than 70% or less than 15% for 'important' or 'not important'. Results Sixty-five participants responded to the first round and the final round Final round consisted of five AHP, two patients and 16 clinicians from eight different countries. Twenty-three outcomes were regarded as important for the COS; eight adverse events, three mortality, five clinical or physiological outcomes, six life impact and one resource-related. Health related quality of life was rated highest of the life impact outcomes but participants thought it was also important to assess disability, physical function, quality of life, return to activities and return to work. Conclusion Collecting serious adverse outcomes was important to all stakeholders as were life impact outcomes such as quality of life, physical function and return to activities. Resource use…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.injury.2019.10.031

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although the FDA regulation seems to provide clearly defined guidance for the conduct of emergency research, several authors have previously attributed to it significant procedural impediments.

    “Although this regulation seems to provide clearly defined guidance for the conduct of emergency research, several authors have previously attributed to it significant procedural impediments. 346,347”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Williamson, 2012, Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes, J Health Serv Res Policy, 17, 1, 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Gargon, 2014, Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: A systematic review, PLoS ONE, 9, e99111, 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 · DOI
  3. Ingoe, 2019, Systematic review of systematic reviews for effectiveness of internal fixation for flail chest and rib fractures in adults, BMJ Open, 9, 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023444 · DOI
  4. Williamson, 2017, The comet handbook: version 1.0, Trials, 18, 280, 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Ingoe, 2018, Developing a consensus on indications, timing and core outcomes for surgical fixation of rib fracture: a Delphi technique protocol, Clinical Trials in Orthopedic Disorders, 3, 1, 10.4103/2542-4157.233622 · DOI
  6. Rankin A, Cadogan CA, In Ryan C, et al. Core outcome set for trials aimed at improving the appropriateness of polypharmacy in older people in primary care. J Am Geriatr Soc 2018. doi:10.1111/jgs.15245. · DOI
  7. Adie, 2017, Are outcomes reported in surgical randomized trials patient-important? A systematic review and meta-analysis, Can J Surgery, 60, 86, 10.1503/cjs.010616 · DOI
  8. Barbash, 2010, New technology and health care costs — the case of robot-assisted surgery, New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 701, 10.1056/NEJMp1006602 · DOI
  9. Byrne, 2017, A core outcomes set for clinical trials of interventions for young adults with type 1 diabetes: an international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study, Trials, 18, 602, 10.1186/s13063-017-2364-y · DOI
  10. Millar, 2017, Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes, Trials, 18, 175, 10.1186/s13063-017-1915-6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ingoe, H. M. A., Eardley, W., Rangan, A., Hewitt, C., & McDaid, C.
Affiliations
  • James Cook University Hospital (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Ingoe, Helen M.A.
  • Eardley, William
  • Rangan, Amar
  • Hewitt, Catherine
  • McDaid, Catriona
Venue
Injury
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
224-229
ISSN
0020-1383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2982623963
Cited by
12
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Injury (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Orthopaedic Research UK
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Trauma Management and Diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
rib fractures, surgical fixation, core outcome set, chest wall injury, Delphi consensus, stakeholder consensus, patient-relevant outcomes, adverse events, mortality, health-related quality of life, resource utilization (health care), return to work, disability, physical function
MeSH terms
Allied Health Personnel, Consensus Statements as Topic, Delphi Technique, Fracture Fixation, Humans, Quality of Life, Rib Fractures, Wounds and Injuries, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Consensus, Thoracic Wall

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review