Analysis of opinions from studies citing use of Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials outcomes taxonomy supports it use in health research: descriptive study

Patient health outcomes measure things that happen to patients relating to their health. These outcomes include clinical measures (such as blood pressure), life impact measures (such as effects on physical functioning), use of resources (such as number of hospital appointments), survival (such as how long someone survives after surgery), and harms (such as adverse events following treatment). In 2018, we developed a classification system (called a taxonomy) to help researchers organize the types of outcomes that they are collecting (perhaps when carrying out a clinical trial) or reporting (eg, when combining results from many studies in a systematic review). This taxonomy was designed to help researchers to more clearly present their results, as well as to allow them to search for outcomes online in a more organized manner. We used outcomes taken from many trials and reviews when developing the taxonomy, to make sure that all types of outcomes were covered, but we wanted to make sure that researchers found the taxonomy helpful in practice. This study has been carried out to understand the opinions of researchers who mentioned the taxonomy in their publications, to find out whether they thought any types of outcomes were missing. The study found that researchers found the taxonomy useful, either to classify their research outcomes or because they found our definitions of the different types of outcomes useful. Sometimes researchers wanted to be able to classify "who" reported the outcomes (such as patients) or wanted more specific definitions of the different types of outcomes included. We would encourage them to create subcategories within our taxonomy categories to cover these outcome features. A few researchers felt that they needed to add some extra outcome types, but this was because they did not realize that these outcomes would fit within one of the existing taxonomy groups. In summary, this study found that the taxonomy is useful to researchers to classify "what" patient health outcomes are recorded in their studies, and researchers are very welcome to contact us if they have any questions about how to use it or how to classify particular outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Published
2025-08-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111917
Primary Topic
Delphi Technique in Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Analysis of opinions from studies citing use of Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials outcomes taxonomy supports it use in health research: descriptive study

Susanna Dodd, Paula Ruth Williamson, Theo Christodoulou
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Delphi Technique in Research
article

Analysis of opinions from studies citing use of Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials outcomes taxonomy supports it use in health research: descriptive study

Susanna Dodd, Paula Ruth Williamson, Theo Christodoulou
article en

Abstract

Patient health outcomes measure things that happen to patients relating to their health. These outcomes include clinical measures (such as blood pressure), life impact measures (such as effects on physical functioning), use of resources (such as number of hospital appointments), survival (such as how long someone survives after surgery), and harms (such as adverse events following treatment). In 2018, we developed a classification system (called a taxonomy) to help researchers organize the types of outcomes that they are collecting (perhaps when carrying out a clinical trial) or reporting (eg, when combining results from many studies in a systematic review). This taxonomy was designed to help researchers to more clearly present their results, as well as to allow them to search for outcomes online in a more organized manner. We used outcomes taken from many trials and reviews when developing the taxonomy, to make sure that all types of outcomes were covered, but we wanted to make sure that researchers found the taxonomy helpful in practice. This study has been carried out to understand the opinions of researchers who mentioned the taxonomy in their publications, to find out whether they thought any types of outcomes were missing. The study found that researchers found the taxonomy useful, either to classify their research outcomes or because they found our definitions of the different types of outcomes useful. Sometimes researchers wanted to be able to classify "who" reported the outcomes (such as patients) or wanted more specific definitions of the different types of outcomes included. We would encourage them to create subcategories within our taxonomy categories to cover these outcome features. A few researchers felt that they needed to add some extra outcome types, but this was because they did not realize that these outcomes would fit within one of the existing taxonomy groups. In summary, this study found that the taxonomy is useful to researchers to classify "what" patient health outcomes are recorded in their studies, and researchers are very welcome to contact us if they have any questions about how to use it or how to classify particular outcomes.

Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 187
University of Liverpool (GB), Merseytravel (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Delphi Technique in Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.