The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies. METHODS: We developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition. RESULTS: A total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n = 164; 83%) and Europe (n = 150; 76%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.
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.
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
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., Dickersin, K., Hrobjartsson, A., Schulz, K. F., Parulekar, W. R., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586 · Cited by 6,251
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-citationKostanjsek, N. (2011) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-s4-s3 · Cited by 434
Cited by
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-citationPrinsen, C. A. C., Vohra, S., Rose, M. R., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., Clarke, M., Williamson, P. R., & Terwee, C. B. (2016) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2 · Cited by 1,106
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-citationCore outcome set–STAndards for reporting: the COS-STAR statement
Kirkham, J. J., Gorst, S., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., Gargon, E., Moher, D., Schmitt, J., Tugwell, P., et al. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148 · Cited by 650
Self-citationA taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery
Dodd, S., Clarke, M., Becker, L., Mavergames, C., Fish, R., & Williamson, P. R. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.020 · Cited by 625
Self-citationSelf-Management Skills in Chronic Disease Management: What Role Does Health Literacy Have?
Mackey, L. M., Doody, C., Werner, E. L., & Fullen, B. (2016) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x16638330 · Cited by 339
Exercise for women receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer
Furmaniak, A. C., Menig, M., & Markes, M. H. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005001.pub3 · Cited by 276
Haywood, K., Whitehead, L., Nadkarni, V. M., Achana, F., Beesems, S., Böttiger, B. W., Brooks, A., Castrén, M., Ong, M. E. H., Hazinski, M. F., et al. (2018) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.03.022 · Cited by 227
A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health
Hughes, K. L., Clarke, M., & Williamson, P. R. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.029 · Cited by 125
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-citationYoung, A. E., Brookes, S. T., Avery, K. N. L., Davies, A., Metcalfe, C., & Blazeby, J. M. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.016 · Cited by 77
“This has identified variability in aspects of COS development, namely the scope, stakeholder involvement, and consensus process [44,45,48,49].”
BackgroundSelf-citationCore outcome sets and trial registries
Clarke, M., & Williamson, P. (2015) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0738-6 · Cited by 52
“to identify a core outcome set if one already exists, as is evidenced by the fact that more than 25,000 records had to be checked as part of the systematic review [14].”
BackgroundSelf-citationAnalysis of responder-based endpoints: improving power through utilising continuous components
Wason, J., McMenamin, M., & Dodd, S. (2020) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04353-8 · Cited by 16
Ingoe, H. M. A., Eardley, W., Rangan, A., Hewitt, C., & McDaid, C. (2020) · Injury · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2019.10.031 · Cited by 12
Cooper, A. M., Coffey, M., & Dugdill, L. (2014) · Pragmatic and Observational Research · doi:10.2147/por.s52287 · Cited by 8
“org/) was started to help develop, report, and adapt core outcomes sets for different areas of health that should be collected and reported as a minimum in trials to help with standardization and comparison across studies.(64) Currently, for dentistry and oral health, there are 21 studies in the database, all of which…”
Metadata
- Authors
- Gargon, E., Gurung, B., Medley, N., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., & Williamson, P. R.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-06-16
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e99111
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2007311930
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 21.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.
