ArticleBMJ open2023
Testing the applicability and additional value of a consultation round after the consensus meeting in the development of two core outcome sets.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Remote Patient Monitoring Interventions Using the Sextuple Aim: Modified Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Acceptability and perceived barriers to adoption of the core outcome set for maternal and neonatal health research and surveillance during emerging and ongoing epidemic threats (MNH-EPI-COS): An online survey.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTest applicability and additional value of a consultation round after the consensus meeting in the development of core outcome sets (COSs). STUDY DESIGN AND
settingIn two COS procedures (Core Outcome Set for the prevention and treatment of fetal GROwth restriction: deVeloping Endpoints (COSGROVE) and Definition and Core Outcomes on Hyperemesis Gravida (DCOHG)) that followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials methodology, the first round of convergence to consensus among stakeholder groups in an online Delphi procedure was followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting during which a COS was formulated. We subsequently presented the COS to the online panel in a consultation round to confirm that the online panel agreed with the choices made at the consensus meeting, defined as 80% agreement.
participantsIn the COSGROVE Study, there were eight stakeholder groups, and 83 out of 107 participants completed the consultation round. In the DCOHG Study, there were four stakeholder groups, and 96 out of 125 completed the consultation round.
interventionsAdding a consultation round after completing a modified Delphi method with a consensus meeting.
resultsThere was a level of agreement of 81% and 84%, respectively, in the consultation round of both procedures. This was above the preset level of agreement. The consultation round yielded additional suggestions to refine COS formulation in one of the studies.
conclusionOur study shows that in two procedures, the online expert panel agreed with the participants of the consensus meeting in these procedures, lending validity to existing COS methodology. Future studies could evaluate whether bringing back the COS for confirmation after the consensus meeting could potentially increase the uptake of the final COS.
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.