Cited by 630Delphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery

Open access
Dodd, Susanna, Clarke, Mike, Becker, Lorne, Mavergames, Chris, Fish, Rebecca, Williamson, Paula R.·2018·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: There is increasing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. The lack of a standardized outcome classification system results in inconsistencies due to ambiguity and variation in how outcomes are described across different studies. Being able to classify by outcome would increase efficiency in searching sources such as clinical trial registries, patient registries, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database of core outcome sets (COS), thus aiding knowledge discovery. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review was carried out to determine existing outcome classification systems, none of which were sufficiently comprehensive or granular for classification of all potential outcomes from clinical trials. A new taxonomy for outcome classification was developed, and as proof of principle, outcomes extracted from all published COS in the COMET database, selected Cochrane reviews, and clinical trial registry entries were classified using this new system. RESULTS: Application of this new taxonomy to COS in the COMET database revealed that 274/299 (92%) COS include at least one physiological outcome, whereas only 177 (59%) include at least one measure of impact (global quality of life or some measure of functioning) and only 105 (35%) made reference to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This outcome taxonomy will be used to annotate outcomes included in COS within the COMET database and is currently being piloted for use in Cochrane Reviews within the Cochrane Linked Data Project. Wider implementation of this standard taxonomy in trial and systematic review databases and registries will further promote efficient searching, reporting, and classification of trial outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.020

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9675

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dodd, S., Clarke, M., Becker, L., Mavergames, C., Fish, R., & Williamson, P. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • SUNY Upstate Medical University (US)
  • Cochrane (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Williamson, Paula R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
96
Pages
84-92
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2778471389
Cited by
625
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 124 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 1
FWCI
69.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0513-10025)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K025635/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
clinical trial results, core outcome set, outcome standardization, knowledge discovery, clinical trial registries, adverse events, quality of life outcomes
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Quality of Life, Registries, Research Design, Databases, Factual, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Data Curation

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