Cited by 483Delphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews

Open access
Clarke, Mike·2007·Trials

Abstract

Fifteen years ago, what was to become OMERACT met for the first time in The Netherlands to discuss ways in which the multitude of outcomes in assessments of the effects of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis might be standardised. In Trials , Tugwell et al have described the need for, and success of, this initiative [ 1 ] and Cooney and colleagues have set out their plans for a corresponding initiative for ulcerative colitis [ 2 ]. Why do we need such initiatives? What's the problem? And are these and other initiatives the solution?

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 · 10.1186/1745-6215-8-39

Cites

18 of 18 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clarke, M.
Affiliations
Trinity College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Clarke, Mike
Venue
Trials
Published
2007-11-26
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
39-39
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015610252
Cited by
483
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 14
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
outcome standardization, OMERACT, rheumatoid arthritis, clinical trial results, systematic reviews, outcome measures, ulcerative colitis

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