The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Barriers to uptake of the hip fracture core outcome set: An international survey of 80 hip fracture trialists
Abstract
Background: Core outcome sets are an agreed recommendation to inform the selection of outcome measures in clinical trials. There has been low uptake of the 2014 hip fracture core outcome set. The reasons for this remain unclear. The aim of this study was to understand the reasons for the non-adoption and approaches to increase adoption of the hip fracture core outcome set. Methods: Randomised controlled trials from PubMed (2017–2019) and ClinicalTrials.gov (2015–2019) were identified. Corresponding authors for each identified trial (n = 302) were surveyed using five questions on awareness of the hip fracture core outcome set, reasons for non-adoption and approaches to increase adoption. Data were analysed descriptively using frequencies, mean values and standard deviations. Results: Fifty-four percent of the respondents (n = 43) were aware of the concept of core outcome set. Only 15% (n = 12) based the outcome measure selection on the 2014 hip fracture core outcome set. Key reasons for non-adoption included the following: authors being unaware and perceived inappropriateness to their trial design. Eighty-six percent (n = 69) of respondents agreed to the need for increased awareness of core outcome sets through research training, academic and clinical journal requirements, and funding or publication stipulations. Eighty-eight percent (n = 70) of respondents indicated the current core outcome set required revision to focus on trials investigating people with cognitive impairment, caregivers, rehabilitation, surgical interventions and anaesthetic trial designs. Conclusion: Barriers to the adoption of the hip fracture core outcome set centre on education, awareness of the core outcome sets and applicability to the breath of hip fracture trial designs. Further consideration should be made to address these, to improve the harmonisation of outcome measures across hip fracture trials.
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
“Previous research has demonstrated that the main reason for reduced uptake of COS is a lack of awareness of their availability (30)”
From Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies Assessing Interventions for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
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
Developing 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
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Royal College of Physicians, 2018, National hip fracture database annual report 2018
- 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.10.008 · DOI
- 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3899/jrheum.181097 · DOI
- 10.1302/0301-620X.96B8.33766 · DOI
- 10.1093/ageing/afz018 · DOI
- 10.1186/1745-6215-14-324 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bja.2017.09.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 · DOI · Paper page
- Edwards PJ, 2009, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3
- 10.3899/jrheum.181066 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.003 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.03.009 · DOI
Cited by
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Fletcher, J., Sheehan, K. J., & Smith, T. O.
- Affiliations
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK
- ORCID
- Smith, Toby O
- Venue
- Clinical Trials
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-07-16
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 712-716
- ISSN
- 1740-7745
- 1740-7753
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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.