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
Evidence Relating Health Care Provider Burnout and Quality of Care
Tawfik, D. S., Scheid, A., Profit, J., Shanafelt, T. D., Trockel, M., Adair, K. C., Sexton, J. B., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2019) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m19-1152 · Cited by 592
“Standardization and consensus on core outcomes may be useful for future studies if appropriate targets can be identified (164).”
Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis
McKenzie, J. E., Brennan, S., Ryan, R. E., Thomson, H., Johnston, R. V., & Thomas, J. (2019) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch3 · Cited by 391
Munblit, D., Nicholson, T. R., Akrami, A., Apfelbacher, C., Chen, J., GROOTE, W. D., Diaz, J. V., Gorst, S. L., Harman, N., Kokorina, A., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(22)00169-2 · Cited by 247
Self-citationChevance, A., Ravaud, P., Tomlinson, A., Le Berre, C., Teufer, B., Touboul, S., Fried, E. I., Gartlehner, G., Cipriani, A., & Tran, V. T. (2020) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30191-7 · Cited by 193
Khoshrounejad, F., Hamednia, M., Mehrjerd, A., Pichaghsaz, S., Jamalirad, H., Sargolzaei, M., Hoseini, B., & Aalaei, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.711762 · Cited by 174
“which is used to classify outcomes included in all trials, core outcome sets (COS), systematic reviews, and trial registries (20).”
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
