Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42321748›Full record

ReviewBMC medicine2026

Outcome measurement for multiple long-term conditions research across health-care settings - an overview of reviews.

Lauren L O'Mahoney, Arron Peace, Clare L Gillies, Ash Routen, Patrick J Highton, Paul Bedford, Ruksar Abdala, Harini Sathanapally, Yogini V Chudasama, Riya Patel and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Lauren L O'MahoneyLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. llom1@leicester.ac.uk.
Arron PeaceLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Clare L GilliesLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Ash RoutenLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Patrick J HightonLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Paul BedfordLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Ruksar AbdalaLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Harini SathanapallyLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Yogini V ChudasamaLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Riya PatelLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Rafael PereraNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah E HughesCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Heather WalkerSchool of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Mark P Funnell *Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Kamlesh Khunti *Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Funding

the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) NIHR303176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple long-term conditions (MLTC) represent a growing global public health challenge, yet research is hindered by inconsistent outcomes across health-care settings and populations. Although several core outcome sets (COS) have been developed, important gaps remain in their coverage, inclusivity, and measurement validity. This overview of reviews summarised outcomes reported in systematic reviews of MLTC research to identify existing domains, describe how measurement instruments were addressed, and highlight areas requiring standardisation.

methodsWe conducted a prospectively registered overview of reviews (PROSPERO CRD420251005152), following PRISMA, PRIOR, and SWiM guidelines. Eligible reviews included adults or children with MLTC-defined as the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions-and reported on outcome measures or COS relevant to this population. Five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials)) were searched from inception to April 2025. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and appraised quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. A narrative synthesis mapped outcomes by domain (clinical, patient-reported, service/system, engagement/experience), care setting, and population subgroup.

resultsFrom 6331 records, 10 reviews met inclusion criteria, encompassing 709 primary studies. Four developed COS, and six mapped outcomes without proposing COS. Quality of life and health-care utilisation were most consistently reported; treatment burden, patient engagement, and child outcomes were infrequently assessed. Existing COS advanced standardisation but remained limited in stakeholder diversity, geographic scope, and specification of measurement instruments, with only one including low- and middle-income countries.

conclusionsGreater inclusivity, validation, and global applicability are needed to operationalise agreed domains and improve comparability across MLTC research.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareChronic DiseaseHumanscore outcome setsMultiple long-term conditionsoutcome measurementoverview of reviewspatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID42321748
PMCPMC13548526

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.