COMET Initiative | Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies

Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies

Ian Sinha and colleagues advise that when using the Delphi process to develop core outcome sets for clinical trials, patients and clinicians be involved, researchers and facilitators avoid imposing their views on participants, and attrition of participants be minimized.

Contributors

Ian P Sinha , Rosalind L Smyth, Paula R Williamson

Publication

Journal: PLoS Med
Volume: 25
Issue: 8(1)
Pages: -
Year: 2011
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393

Further Study Information

Current Stage: Completed
Date:
Funding source(s): IPS was funded by the NIHR Medicines for Children Research Network Clinical Trials Unit and Co-ordinating Centre. The Medicines for Children Research Network is part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and is funded by the Department of Health. IPS was funded by Department of Health grant RNC/013/011.

Health Area

Disease Category: Other

Disease Name: N/A

Target Population

Age Range: Unknown

Sex:

Nature of Intervention: N/A

Stakeholders Involved

- None

Study Type

- COS methods research

Method(s)

- Systematic review

This paper aims to contribute to the methodology of determining which outcomes to measure in clinical trials, or systematic reviews of clinical trials.

We searched Medline (no date restrictions) in January 2010 to identify studies that used the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials or systematic reviews of clinical trials. From each eligible study, the following methodological aspects were noted: the participants involved, the types of questions asked, whether the study was completely anonymised, whether non-responders in earlier rounds were included or excluded from subsequent rounds, and the definition of consensus used by the authors. We also evaluated the quality with which the methods and results were reported. These assessments enabled us to identify variations in the methods applied within these studies, and areas of reporting quality that could be improved.

Linked Studies

No related studies