Cited by 37Delphi Technique in ResearchMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Recommendations for core outcome domain set for whiplash-associated disorders (CATWAD)

Open access
Chen, Kenneth, Andersen, Tonny, Carroll, Linda, Connelly, Luke, Côté, Pierre, Curatolo, Michele, Elliott, James, Grant, Genevieve +14 more·2019·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of treatments for Whiplash-associated Disorders (WAD) hinders effective data pooling and conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of tested treatments. The aim of this study was to provide recommendations for core outcome domains that should be included in clinical trials of WAD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-step process was used: (1) A list of potential core outcome domains were identified from the published literature. (2) Researchers, health care providers, patients, and insurance personnel participated and rated the importance of each domain via a 3-round Delphi survey. A priori criteria for consensus were established. (3) Experts comprising researchers, health care providers, and a consumer representative participated in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting that made final decisions on the recommended core outcome domains. RESULTS: The literature search identified 63 potential core domains. A total of 223 participants were invited to partake in the Delphi surveys, with 41.7% completing round 1, 45.3% round 2, and 51.4% round 3. Eleven core domains met the criteria for inclusion across the entire sample. After the expert consensus meeting, 6 core domains were recommended: Physical Functioning, Perceived Recovery, Work and Social Functioning, Psychological Functioning, Quality of Life, and Pain. DISCUSSION: A 3-step process was used to recommend core outcome domains for clinical trials in WAD. Six core domains were recommended: Physical Functioning, Perceived Recovery, Work and Social Functioning, Psychological Functioning, Quality of Life, and Pain. The next step is to determine the outcome measurement instruments for each of these domains.

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 · 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000735

Cites

47 of 47 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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [34]34. Sterling M, Hendrikz J, Kenardy J. Similar factors predict disability and PTSD trajectories following whiplash injury. Pain 2011;152(6):1272-1278.
  2. [39]39. Kuyken W, Orley J. The Development of the World Health Organisation Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (the WHOQOL). In: W Kuyken, J Orley, editors. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives, Vol. 53. Berlin: Springer, 1994. pp. 41-57.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, K., Andersen, T., Carroll, L., Connelly, L., Côté, P., Curatolo, M., Elliott, J., Grant, G., Jull, G., Kasch, H., MacDermid, J., Malmström, E.-M., Maujean, A., McLean, S. A., Nielsen, M., Rebbeck, T., Söderlund, A., Sterling, J., Treleaven, J., Walton, D. M., Westergren, H., & Sterling, M.
Affiliations
  • Recover Injury Research Centre
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Mälardalen University (SE)
  • Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Côté, Pierre
  • Kasch, Helge
  • Maujean, Annick
  • McLean, Samuel A.
  • Sterling, Joanna
  • Sterling, Michele
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2019-09
Volume
35
Issue
9
Pages
727-736
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2949688272
Cited by
37
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
10.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Menzies Health Institute Queensland
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
whiplash-associated disorders, core outcome set, outcome reporting, clinical trial reporting, physical function, perceived recovery, work and social functioning, psychological functioning, quality of life, pain, Delphi consensus, outcome measurement instruments
MeSH terms
Humans, Quality of Life, Research Design, Whiplash Injuries, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Consensus

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