The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Higher number of items associated with significantly lower response rates in COS Delphi surveys
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?
In the citing paper
“Nonetheless, relatively low response rates in the consecutive rounds are a recognized limitation of the Delphi process, particularly in surveys with a high number of items available for rating (29).”
From Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies Assessing Interventions for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration (2024) · cites this paper as [29]
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
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-citationDeveloping core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider
Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., Gargon, E., & Tugwell, P. (2012) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 · Cited by 1,661
Self-citationSystematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., Easterbrook, P. J., Von Elm, E., Gamble, C., et al. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 · Cited by 1,546
Self-citationMethods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires
Edwards, P. J., Roberts, I., Clarke, M. J., DiGuiseppi, C., Wentz, R., Kwan, I., Cooper, R., Felix, L. M., & Pratap, S. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000008.pub4 · Cited by 1,379
Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., Kirkham, J. J., & the Reporting Bias Group (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844 · Cited by 1,127
Self-citationSinha, I. P., Smyth, R. L., & Williamson, P. R. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393 · Cited by 891
Self-citationCore Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations
Kirkham, J. J., Davis, K., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Tunis, S., & Williamson, P. R. (2017) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447 · Cited by 792
Self-citationGorst, S. L., Gargon, E., Clarke, M., Smith, V., & Williamson, P. R. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168403 · Cited by 85
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Hirsch, 2016, International Collaboration to Harmonize O, Measures for E: variation in outcome reporting in endometriosis trials: a systematic review, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 214, 452, 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.039 · DOI
- Chalmers, 2009, Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence, Lancet, 374, 86, 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 · DOI · Paper page
- Chan, 2014, Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research, Lancet, 383, 257, 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5 · DOI · Paper page
- Gargon, 2014, Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review, PLoS One, 9, e99111, 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 · DOI · Paper page
- Gorst, 2016, Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and user survey, PLoS One, 11, e0146444, 10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 · DOI
- Davis, 2018, Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries, PLoS One, 13, e0190695, 10.1371/journal.pone.0190695 · DOI
- Hasson, 2000, Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique, J Adv Nurs, 32, 1008, 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x · DOI · Paper page
- Gargon, 2017, Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance, J Clin Epidemiol, 86, 140, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.024 · DOI
- Brookes, 2018, Impact of question order on prioritisation of outcomes in the development of a core outcome set: a randomised controlled trial, Trials, 19, 66, 10.1186/s13063-017-2405-6 · DOI
- Turnbull, 2018, A survey of Delphi panelists after core outcome set development revealed positive feedback and methods to facilitate panel member participation, J Clin Epidemiol, 102, 99, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.06.007 · DOI
- Hall, 2018, Recruiting and retaining participants in e-Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: evaluating the COMiT'ID study, PLoS One, 13, e0201378, 10.1371/journal.pone.0201378 · DOI
- Leece, 2004, Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled comparison (2), J Med Internet Res, 6, e39, 10.2196/jmir.6.4.e39 · DOI
- Treweek, 2018, Trial forge guidance 1: what is a study within a trial (SWAT)?, Trials, 19, 139, 10.1186/s13063-018-2535-5 · DOI · Paper page
- Walters, 2017, Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme, BMJ Open, 7, e015276, 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
We Agree, Don’t We? The Delphi Method for Health Environments Research
Taylor, E. (2020) · HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal · doi:10.1177/1937586719887709 · Cited by 316
Expert Consensus on the Tapering of Oral Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Asthma. A Delphi Study
Suehs, C. M., Menzies-Gow, A., Price, D., Bleecker, E. R., Canonica, G. W., Gurnell, M., & Bourdin, A. (2021) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.202007-2721oc · Cited by 118
Staniszewska, A., Game, F., Nixon, J., Russell, D., Armstrong, D. G., Ashmore, C., Bus, S. A., Chung, J., Chuter, V., Dhatariya, K., et al. (2024) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc24-1112 · Cited by 45
Domschke, K., Seuling, P. D., Schiele, M. A., Bandelow, B., Batelaan, N. M., Bokma, W. A., Branchi, I., Broich, K., Burkauskas, J., Davies, S. J. C., et al. (2024) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.21177 · Cited by 46
Using the Delphi Method to Establish Expert Consensus: A Practical Guide
Jorm, A. (2025) · Advancing Methods for Interdisciplinarity in the Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-8357-4 · Cited by 22
Identifying nurse sensitive indicators specific to haemodialysis nursing: A Delphi approach
McIntyre, D., Coyer, F., & Bonner, A. (2020) · Collegian · doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2019.06.003 · Cited by 11
Behaviour Support in Dentistry Core Outcomes (BeSiDe-CO): A Core Outcome Set Development Study.
Mac Giolla Phadraig, C., Olegário, I. C., Hsu, S., Al Zayer, M., Fisal, A. B. A., Dougall, A., Kitchen, G. B., Duncan, H. F., Baker, S., Pani, S., et al. (2026) · Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/cdoe.70083 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Gargon, E., Crew, R., Burnside, G., & Williamson, P. R.
- ORCID
- Gargon, Elizabeth
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-04
- Volume
- 108
- Pages
- 110-120
- ISSN
- 0895-4356
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 8
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health Research, United Kingdom Senior Investigator Award (NF-SI_0513-10025)
- Medical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research (MR/K025635/1)
- European Cooperation in Science and Technology
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
