The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative supports standardisation, providing a taxonomy 19 to classify outcomes used in trials.”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A strength of this review is the meticulous process of categorising and coding all measures with reference to literature, including the novel application of the COMET taxonomy to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy research. 19”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wilson, I. B. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520250075037 · Cited by 3,027
The COMET Handbook: version 1.0
Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Bagley, H., Barnes, K. L., Blazeby, J. M., Brookes, S. T., Clarke, M., Gargon, E., Gorst, S., Harman, N., et al. (2017) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 · Cited by 2,011
Self-citationThe human phenotype ontology: a tool for annotating and analyzing human hereditary disease
Robinson, P. N., Köhler, S., Bauer, S., Seelow, D., Horn, D., & Mundlos, S. (2008) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.09.017 · Cited by 1,034
Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0
Boers, M., Kirwan, J. R., Wells, G., Beaton, D., Gossec, L., d'Agostino, M.-A., Conaghan, P. G., Bingham, C. O., Brooks, P., Landewé, R., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.013 · Cited by 781
Davey, J., Turner, R. M., Clarke, M. J., & Higgins, J. P. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-160 · Cited by 404
Self-citationWhat are the best outcome measurements for atopic eczema? A systematic review
Schmitt, J., Langan, S., & Williams, H. C. (2007) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.011 · Cited by 388
Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review
Gargon, E., Gurung, B., Medley, N., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M. J., & Williamson, P. R. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 · Cited by 343
Self-citationBoers, M., Tugwell, P., Felson, D. T., Pl, V. R., Kirwan, J., Edmonds, J. P., Js, S., Khaltaev, N., & Kd, M. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 308
Macefield, R. C., Jacobs, M., Korfage, I. J., Nicklin, J., Whistance, R. N., Brookes, S. T., Sprangers, M. A. G., & Blazeby, J. M. (2014) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-49 · Cited by 181
Gorst, S. L., Gargon, E., Clarke, M. J., Blazeby, J. M., Altman, D. G., & Williamson, P. R. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 · Cited by 154
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–630 of 630
Pezoulas, V. C., Tachos, N., Fotiadis, D. I., Tripepi, G., Zoccali, C., Cromm, K., & Strippoli, G. F. (2026) · Journal of Nephrology · doi:10.1093/joneph/aajag032
Development of a Core Patient-Reported Outcome (Measures) Set for Pediatric Physical Therapy
Limmen, S., Korteling, D., Bloemen, M. A. T., Luijten, M. A. J., Engelbert, R., Rameckers, E. A. A., van Oers, H. A., Haverman, L., & Ketelaar, M. (2026) · Pediatric Physical Therapy · doi:10.1097/pep.0000000000001304
“6,16,17 Using disease-specific PROMs to measure the same underlying PRO impedes data aggregation across patient populations, as different PROMs often use different scoring systems.”
Finch, D. A., Chaudhury, M. P., Morris, R., Parkin, E., Mitchell, P., Martin-Hirsch, P., Renehan, A. G., & Fish, R. (2026) · BJS Open · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrag061
“Each SOT was categorized using a taxonomy developed specifically by the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative for classifying outcomes measured in clinical trials 19 .”
Self-citationPurcell, S., Robinson, K., Morrissey, A., Ryan, S. M., O’Connor, M., Salsberg, J., & Hayes, S. (2026) · HRB Open Research · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14480.1
Truong, V., Safar, S. B., Ananth, S., Fally, M., Beech, A. S., Souto‐Miranda, S., Bakerly, N. D., Gorst, S., Singh, D., Vestbo, J., et al. (2026) · European Respiratory Review · doi:10.1183/16000617.0300-2025
“The outcomes were classified using the COMET taxonomy into mortality/survival, clinical, physiological (objective biological, structural or physiological function measures), life impact, resource use or adverse events outcomes [22].”
Keels, J. N., Thomas, J., Jenkins, J., Badzek, L., Dewell, S., Tonkin, E. T., & Dwyer, A. A. (2026) · International Nursing Review · doi:10.1111/inr.70206
“Findings were grouped into Cochrane outcome taxonomy domains: (i) consumer-oriented, (ii) healthcare provider–oriented, and (iii) service delivery–oriented outcomes (Dodd et al. 2018 ).”
InfluentialDiagnósticos de enfermagem na pessoa submetida a intervenção coronária percutânea: scoping review
Sa, B., Gomes, B., Pinto, J., Pinto, C., Príncipe, F., & Gomes, A. (2026) · Revista de Investigação & Inovação em Saúde · doi:10.37914/riis.v9.544
Developing a core outcome set for pharmacist interventions in chronic kidney disease: a Delphi study
Ardavani, A., Curtis, F., HIGHTON, P. J., Khunti, K., & Wilkinson, T. J. (2026) · Journal of Nephrology · doi:10.1093/joneph/aajag005
Omkar, A., Bertrand, J. K., Sadasivan, C., Osness, E., Vandermeer, B., Ding, X., Dennett, L., Mansour, J., Ezeugwu, V. E., Hyde, A. M., et al. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261473804
Outcomes following major dysvascular lower limb amputation: an updated systematic review
Ghai, S., Hitzig, S. L., Edrees, M. F., Mayo, A. L., Blanchette, V., Habra, N., Zucker-Levin, A. R., & Zidarov, D. (2026) · BMC Cardiovascular Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12872-026-06377-5
“All five core areas of Dodd’s framework [32] were used to categorize 1,004 outcome measures and indicators from the current review and 1,462 from Ambler, et al. [31]’s review.”
InfluentialCOSMIC: a core outcome set for intravenous maintenance fluid therapy trials in children
Brossier, D., Valla, F. V., Briassoulis, G. C., Chaparro, C. J., Chiusolo, F., Dursun, O., Duval, E. L. I. M., Horváth, K., Ilia, S., Kenderessy, P., et al. (2026) · World Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/s12519-026-01066-x
“Finally, the remaining outcomes were listed and classified into seven categories (overall, clinical, biological, organ failure and support, nutrition, adverse events and intervention) according to the COMET taxonomy [17] (Table 1).”
Swallowing Rehabilitation in People With Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Scoping Review
Gandolfi, S., Andriani, C., Flynn, É., & Walshe, M. (2026) · Advances in Communication and Swallowing · doi:10.1177/27725383261478434
Shi, Q., Yue, P., Wu, M., Zhang, J., Wang, B., Zhang, B., Huang, C., Estill, J., Chen, Y., & Meng, W. (2026) · Endoscopic Ultrasound · doi:10.1097/eus.0000000000000204
“[54] Patients in this population commonly experience substantial physical, mental and social distress, largely attributable to procedure-related adverse events ( e.g ., catheter dislodgement, which, although generally minor, has been reported in up to 30% of patients during long-term follow-up),…”
Gabb, V. G., Harding, S. A., Lemke, T., Alderman, S., Woodward, N., Clayton, J., McNair, A., Barrett‐Muir, W., Richardson, A., Dooley, J., et al. (2026) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.71800 · Cited by 1
“33 We adopted the current working definition of a unique outcome as “one that has original meaning and context.”
InfluentialVasanthan, L., Gorst, S. L., Dodd, S. R., Dobson, F., Connolly, B., & Williamson, P. R. (2026) · Trials · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10230139/v1
Self-citationLin, Z., HUANG, X., Yan, Y., Zheng, X., Wang, W., & Su, G. (2026) · International Nursing Review · doi:10.1111/inr.70217
Hoffmann, C., Butterworth, J. E., Naye, F., Smith, M., Nyamapfene, T., Lawday, S., AVERY, K. N. L., Bekker, H., Bravo, P., Décary, S., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-116623 · Cited by 1
“The process of grouping outcomes will be guided by existing frameworks, including the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) filter 2.1 44 and the COMET outcome taxonomy, 45 to create a long list of candidate outcome domains.”
InfluentialCOSMYC: a Core Outcome Set for MYopia clinical trials with Children and young people
Dahlmann-Noor, A. H., Jacobson, M., Islam, L., Gorst, S. L., Baker, H., Freemantle, N., Rivas, C. A., & Azuara‐Blanco, A. (2026) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo-2026-330475
Evidence and Future Directions for Pediatric Health Care Chatbots: Systematic Review
Yang, S., Jin, J. H., You, S. C., Kim, S. Y., & Kim, K. W. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/98432
“Reported health-related outcomes were categorized by outcome domain, encompassing health and psychological, or behavioral and cognitive outcomes, from a structured taxonomy [26].”
Lyu, J., Liu, G., Liu, Y., Lei, L., Li, X., Bai, M., Sun, L., & Gao, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Pediatrics · doi:10.3389/fped.2026.1910257
“Without a pre-defined conceptual framework, meta-analytic results may be shaped primarily by data availability rather than by underlying developmental, physiological, or clinical rationale (4, 8).”
Machielsen, A. J. H. M., Meijer, N., van Dongen, J., Boll, D., Haren, E. V., Oonk, M. H. M., Aarts, J. W. M., Oerlemans, S., Kimman, M., van Esch, E. M. G., et al. (2026) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-026-11270-0
“The methodology of this study is in accordance with guidance provided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative [20, 21].”
PUMA tracheal extubation guidelines: towards clarity or complexity?
Ahmad, I., & Cook, T. M. (2026) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.70436
Towards the development of a core outcome domain set for remote cochlear implant management
Allen, D., Sucher, C. M., Laird, E., Boisvert, I., & Ferguson, M. (2026) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992027.2026.2702202
Mendes, E., & Estragués, M. S. (2026) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2026.113153
Mendes, E., & Marc (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11319252/v1
Reported outcomes for patients following postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures
Cong, W., Howell, E., Krause, T., Fox, R., Bertram, W., Lamb, J. N., Cheng, H., Whitehouse, M. R., Evans, J. T., Wylde, V., et al. (2026) · Bone and Joint Research · doi:10.1302/2046-3758.1510.bjr-2025-0734
Sidapra, M., Long, J. A., Hitchman, L. H., Nixon, J., Tiffin, P. A., Arundel, C., & Chetter, I. C. (2026) · International Wound Journal · doi:10.1111/iwj.71066
“These were based on the outcome domain taxonomy developed by Dodd et al. [10].”
Guidance for defining outcomes in clinical trials
Ying, X., Li, T., McKenzie, J. E., Page, M. J., Ninan, K., Oberste, J.-P., Vorland, C. J., Brown, A. W., Qureshı, R., DeVito, N., et al. (2026) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1005275
Development of a core outcome set for IBD patients with stomas
Kumar, L., Hanly, M., Fennessy, A., O’Morain, N. R., Martin, S., Keogh, Á., Burns, R., Kehoe, A., Dames, N. B., Kimman, M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Crohn s and Colitis · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjag157
Burrows, G., Young, I., Donnachie, C., & Mitchell, K. R. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1871652
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC5854263
- 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
- FWCI
- 69.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
