ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018
Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for pelvic girdle pain, including methods for measuring the outcomes: the PGP-COS study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- A core outcome set for research and clinical practice in women with pelvic girdle pain: PGP-COS.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of human hepatitis E virus exposure in non-endemic countries.Zoonoses and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Outcomes and outcomes measurements used in intervention studies of pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain: a systematic review.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Knowledge Mapping Analysis of Research on Pregnancy-Related Pelvic Girdle Pain (PPGP) from 2002 to 2022 Using Bibliometrics.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Drivers, barriers, and response to care of Australian pregnant women seeking chiropractic care for low back and pelvic girdle pain: a qualitative case study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2023Article
- Article
- Review
- Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and stroke.HRB open research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic Girdle Pain (PGP) is an important cause of disability and economic cost worldwide. There is a need for effective preventative and management strategies. Emerging studies measure a variety of outcomes rendering synthesis and translation to clinical practice difficult. A Core Outcome Set (COS) can address this problem by ensuring that data are relevant, useful and usable for making well-informed healthcare choices. The aim of this study is to develop a consensus-based PGP-COS, including agreement on methods (e.g. instruments) for measuring the construct outcomes in the COS for use in research and clinical practice. Furthermore, as there is uncertainty as to whether incorporating stakeholder interviews in addition to conducting a systematic review to determine an initial list of outcomes for the Delphi survey, or, whether using different rating scales in a Delphi survey impacts on the final COS, we propose to embed two methodological studies within the PGP-COS development process to address these questions.
methodsThe PGP-COS study will include five phases: (1) A systematic review of the literature and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients (three countries) to form the initial list of outcomes for the Delphi survey; (2) A 3-round Delphi including patients, clinicians, researchers and service providers; (3) A systematic review of methods for measuring the outcomes in the preliminary PGP-COS identified in the Delphi survey; (4) A face-to-face consensus meeting to agree on the final PGP-COS and methods for measuring the COS; (5) Global dissemination. To address the methodological questions, we will assess the number and type of outcomes, in the final PGP-COS, that were exclusively derived from the interviews. Secondly, we will randomise Delphi survey participants to either a 5-point or 9-point importance rating scale, and examine potential differences in 'important' ratings between the groups. DISCUSSION: There is currently no COS for measuring/monitoring PGP in trials and clinical practice. A PGP-COS will ensure that relevant outcomes are measured using appropriate measurement instruments for patients with PGP globally. CORE OUTCOME SET REGISTRATION: This PGP-COS was registered with COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) in January 2017 ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/958 ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.