Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 29, 2025
05:02
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
33.0K
Inconsistency and low transparency were found between core outcome set protocol and full text publication: a
Ming Liu1, Ya Gao1, Yuan Yuan2
1Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
|November 23, 2020
Summary
Discrepancies between core outcome set (COS) protocols and publications are common, affecting study types, Delphi surveys, and consensus meetings. Transparency in reporting methodological changes during COS development is crucial for reliable research.
Area of Science:
- Health Research Methodology
- Evidence-Based Medicine
- Clinical Trial Design
Background:
- Core Outcome Sets (COSs) standardize outcomes in clinical trials.
- Published protocols guide COS development, ensuring methodological transparency.
- Inconsistencies between protocols and publications can impact the reliability of COS.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the extent and nature of inconsistencies between COS development protocols and their corresponding full-text publications.
- To identify specific areas where methodological changes occurred without clear explanations.
Main Methods:
- Systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, COMET) for COS protocols and publications.
- Comparison of general and methodological characteristics between protocols and full-text publications.
- Summarization of changes in study type, Delphi procedures, and consensus meetings, noting frequency and proportion.
Main Results:
- 24 protocols and 32 publications were analyzed.
- Significant inconsistencies were found in 20.8% of COSs regarding study types and 8 COSs regarding general databases searched.
- Changes in Delphi rounds (3), participants (8), and consensus definitions (3) were noted, with few explanations provided. Nine COSs also changed participants for consensus meetings without explanation.
Conclusions:
- Numerous inconsistencies exist between COS development protocols and published full-text articles.
- These discrepancies span study types, database selection, Delphi survey modifications, and consensus meeting conduct.
- Enhanced transparency and clear reporting of methodological deviations are essential for robust COS development and application.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:16Bioequivalence: Overview
1.5K
Pharmaceutical equivalents, by definition, are drug products with the same active ingredient in the same quantities, encapsulated in identical dosage forms, and intended for the same administration routes. These pharmaceutical equivalents are deemed bioequivalent if the bioavailability of the active entity in the drug preparations is similar. Moreover, pharmaceutical equivalents demonstrating bioequivalence are also regarded as therapeutically equivalent. This means that when used as directed,...
1.5K
01:16Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation
81
Body:The statistical interpretation of bioequivalence data is a significant aspect of pharmaceutical research. Bioequivalence refers to the absence of any significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient in pharmaceutical products becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions. This helps determine if different drug products have similar absorption rates, ensuring their interchangeability.Statistical...
81
01:27Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
406
Confounding in statistical epidemiology represents a pivotal challenge, referring to the distortion in the perceived relationship between an exposure and an outcome due to the presence of a third variable, known as a confounder. This variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome but is not a direct link in their causal chain. Its presence can lead to erroneous interpretations of the exposure's effect, either exaggerating or underestimating the true association. This...
406
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
1.0K
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:
1.0K
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
274
Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
274
01:27Bioavailability Study Design: Absolute Versus Relative Bioavailability
150
Bioavailability is a crucial pharmacokinetic parameter that quantifies the proportion of an administered drug that reaches the systemic circulation and is available for therapeutic action. Regulatory agencies mandate the assessment of bioavailability, typically measured as the area under the drug plasma concentration-versus-time curve (AUC), to ensure the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical products. These evaluations are categorized as absolute and relative bioavailability studies.Absolute...
150