REFERENCES:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.