REFERENCES:
  1. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017, 18(Suppl 3):280.
  2. Li X, Ya Z, Chen Y, Yang K, Zhang Z. The reporting characteristics and methodological quality of Cochrane reviews about health policy research. Health policy 2015, 119(4):503-510.
  3. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement. Trials 2019, 20(1):116.
  4. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010, 340:c365.
  5. Gorst SL, Prinsen CA, Salcher-Konrad M, Matvienko-Sikar K, Williamson PR, Terwee CB. Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in Core Outcome Sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. J Clin Epidemiol 2020 26;125:64-75.
  6. Davis K, Gorst SL, Harman N, Smith V, Gargon E, Altman DG, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries. PloS one 2018, 13(2):e0190695.
  7. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Chan AW, Gamble C, Dwan KM, Williamson PR. Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews. BMJ 2018, 362:k3802.
  8. Gargon E, Gorst SL, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PloS one 2019, 14(12):e0225980.
  9. Gargon E, Gorst SL, Harman NL, Smith V, Matvienko-Sikar K, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PloS one 2018, 13(12):e0209869.
  10. Wuytack F, Smith V, Clarke M, Williamson P, Gargon E. Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev 2015, 4:73.
  11. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PloS one 2014, 9(6):e99111.
  12. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Smith V, Williamson PR. Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps. PloS one 2016, 11(12):e0168403.
  13. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Blazeby JM, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey. PloS one 2016, 11(1):e0146444.
  14. Gorst SL, Young B, Williamson PR, Wilding JPH, Harman NL. Incorporating patients’ perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2019, 7(1):e000615.
  15. Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLoS Med 2017, 14(11):e1002447.
  16. Biggane AM, Brading L, Ravaud P, Young B, Williamson PR. Survey indicated that core outcome set development is increasingly including patients, being conducted internationally and using Delphi surveys. Trials 2018, 19(1):113.
  17. Kirkham JJ, Bracken M, Hind L, Pennington K, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Industry funding was associated with increased use of core outcome sets. J Clin Epidemiol 2019, 115:90-97.
  18. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLoS Med 2016, 13(10):e1002148.
  19. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Blazeby JM, Kirkham JJ. Improvement was needed in the standards of development for cancer core outcome sets. J Clin Epidemiol 2019, 112:36-44.
  20. De la Fuente-Solana EI, Suleiman-Martos N, Pradas-Hernández L, Gomez-Urquiza JL, Cañadas-De la Fuente GA, Albendín-García L. Prevalence, Related Factors, and Levels of Burnout Syndrome Among Nurses Working in Gynecology and Obstetrics Services: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, 16(14).
  21. Al Wattar BH, Tamilselvan K, Khan R, Kelso A, Sinha A, Pirie AM, et al. Development of a core outcome set for epilepsy in pregnancy (E-CORE): a national multi-stakeholder modified Delphi consensus study. BJOG 2017, 124(4):661-667.
  22. Pergialiotis V, Durnea C, Elfituri A, Duffy JMN, Doumouchtsis SK. Do we need a core outcome set for childbirth perineal trauma research? A systematic review of outcome reporting in randomised trials evaluating the management of childbirth trauma. BJOG 125(12):1522-1531.
  23. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Young B. Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance. J Clin Epidemiol 2017, 86:140-152.
  24. Tunis SR, Clarke M, Gorst SL, Gargon E, Blazeby JM, Altman DG, et al. Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res 2016, 5(2):193-205.
  25. Duffy JMN, Thompson T, Hinton L, Salinas M, McManus RJ, Ziebland S, et al. What outcomes should researchers select, collect and report in pre-eclampsia research? A qualitative study exploring the views of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. BJOG 2019, 126(5):637-646.
  26. Gorst SL, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Gargon E, Tunis S, et al. Proceedings of the 5th Meeting of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Trials 2015, 16 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):A1-p11.