FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4249432029> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4249432029 endingPage "A2" @default.
• W4249432029 startingPage "A1" @default.
• W4249432029 abstract "Clinical trials, systematic reviews and guidelines compare beneficial and non-beneficial outcomes following interventions. Often, however, various studies on a particular topic do not address the same outcomes, making it difficult to draw clinically useful conclusions when a group of studies is looked at as a whole [[1]Williamson P.R. Altman D.G. Blazeby J.M. et al.Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider.Trials. 2012; 13: 132Crossref PubMed Scopus (968) Google Scholar]. This problem was recently thrown into sharp focus by a systematic review of interventions for preterm birth prevention, which found that among 103 randomised trials, no fewer than 72 different outcomes were reported [[2]Meher S. Alfirevic Z. Choice of primary outcomes in randomised trials and systematic reviews evaluating interventions for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review.BJOG. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. There is a growing recognition among clinical researchers that this variability undermines consistent synthesis of the evidence, and that what is needed is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes – a “core outcomes set” – for all trials in a specific clinical area [[1]Williamson P.R. Altman D.G. Blazeby J.M. et al.Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider.Trials. 2012; 13: 132Crossref PubMed Scopus (968) Google Scholar]. Recognising that the current inconsistency is a serious hindrance to progress in our specialty, the editors of over 50 journals related to women’s health have come together to support the CROWN (Core Outcomes in Women’s health) Initiative (Box 1).Box 1: Aims of The CROWN Initiative1.Form a consortium among all gynaecology–obstetrics and related journals to promote core outcome sets in all areas of our specialty.2.Encourage researchers to develop core outcome sets using robust consensus methodology involving multiple stakeholders, including patients.3.Strongly encourage the reporting of results for core outcome sets.4.Organise robust peer-review and effective dissemination of manuscripts describing core outcome sets.5.Facilitate embedding of core outcome sets in research practice, working closely with researchers, reviewers, funders and guideline makers.www.crown-initiative.orgDevelopment of consensus is required around a set of well-defined, relevant and feasible outcomes for all trials concerning particular obstetric and gynaecologic health conditions, such as preterm birth, incontinence, infertility and menstrual problems. With so many subspecialties involved, this is no easy task. Duplication of effort can be avoided by working with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative, which is working towards core data sets for all medical specialties [[3]Williamson P.R. Altman D.G. Blazeby J.M. Clarke M. Gargon E. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative.Trials. 2011; 12: A70Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Production of trustworthy core outcome sets will require engagement with patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, industry and regulators, and the employment of scientifically robust consensus methods [[1]Williamson P.R. Altman D.G. Blazeby J.M. et al.Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider.Trials. 2012; 13: 132Crossref PubMed Scopus (968) Google Scholar]. The data for these core outcome sets, once agreed upon, should be collected in trials and reported in publications as standard practice in the future.Journal editors now invite researchers to take the lead in beginning this work. What will we do as editors to support them and their colleagues? First, we are drawing wide attention to the CROWN Initiative by publishing this editorial in the journals listed below. We shall ensure that the global research community, which includes our many reviewers, is aware of the need for core outcome sets. Submissions which describe development of core outcome sets, if deemed acceptable after peer review, will be effectively disseminated.Our collaboration is not for enforcing harmony at the expense of innovation. To quote from the COMET home page (www.comet-initiative.org): “The existence or use of a core outcome set does not imply that outcomes in a particular trial should be restricted to those in the relevant core outcome set. Rather, there is an expectation that the core outcomes will be collected and reported, making it easier for the results of trials to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate; while researchers continue to explore other outcomes as well.” We also expect that as new or superior ways of capturing outcomes emerge, core outcome sets will themselves need updating.Producing, disseminating and implementing core outcome sets will ensure that critical and important outcomes with good measurement properties are incorporated and reported. We believe this is the next important step in advancing the usefulness of research, in informing readers, including guideline and policy developers, who are involved in decision-making, and in improving evidence-based practice. Clinical trials, systematic reviews and guidelines compare beneficial and non-beneficial outcomes following interventions. Often, however, various studies on a particular topic do not address the same outcomes, making it difficult to draw clinically useful conclusions when a group of studies is looked at as a whole [[1]Williamson P.R. Altman D.G. Blazeby J.M. et al.Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider.Trials. 2012; 13: 132Crossref PubMed Scopus (968) Google Scholar]. This problem was recently thrown into sharp focus by a systematic review of interventions for preterm birth prevention, which found that among 103 randomised trials, no fewer than 72 different outcomes were reported [[2]Meher S. Alfirevic Z. Choice of primary outcomes in randomised trials and systematic reviews evaluating interventions for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review.BJOG. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. There is a growing recognition among clinical researchers that this variability undermines consistent synthesis of the evidence, and that what is needed is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes – a “core outcomes set” – for all trials in a specific clinical area [[1]Williamson P.R. Altman D.G. Blazeby J.M. et al.Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider.Trials. 2012; 13: 132Crossref PubMed Scopus (968) Google Scholar]. Recognising that the current inconsistency is a serious hindrance to progress in our specialty, the editors of over 50 journals related to women’s health have come together to support the CROWN (Core Outcomes in Women’s health) Initiative (Box 1). 1.Form a consortium among all gynaecology–obstetrics and related journals to promote core outcome sets in all areas of our specialty.2.Encourage researchers to develop core outcome sets using robust consensus methodology involving multiple stakeholders, including patients.3.Strongly encourage the reporting of results for core outcome sets.4.Organise robust peer-review and effective dissemination of manuscripts describing core outcome sets.5.Facilitate embedding of core outcome sets in research practice, working closely with researchers, reviewers, funders and guideline makers.www.crown-initiative.org 1.Form a consortium among all gynaecology–obstetrics and related journals to promote core outcome sets in all areas of our specialty.2.Encourage researchers to develop core outcome sets using robust consensus methodology involving multiple stakeholders, including patients.3.Strongly encourage the reporting of results for core outcome sets.4.Organise robust peer-review and effective dissemination of manuscripts describing core outcome sets.5.Facilitate embedding of core outcome sets in research practice, working closely with researchers, reviewers, funders and guideline makers. www.crown-initiative.org Development of consensus is required around a set of well-defined, relevant and feasible outcomes for all trials concerning particular obstetric and gynaecologic health conditions, such as preterm birth, incontinence, infertility and menstrual problems. With so many subspecialties involved, this is no easy task. Duplication of effort can be avoided by working with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative, which is working towards core data sets for all medical specialties [[3]Williamson P.R. Altman D.G. Blazeby J.M. Clarke M. Gargon E. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative.Trials. 2011; 12: A70Crossref PubMed Google Scholar]. Production of trustworthy core outcome sets will require engagement with patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, industry and regulators, and the employment of scientifically robust consensus methods [[1]Williamson P.R. Altman D.G. Blazeby J.M. et al.Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider.Trials. 2012; 13: 132Crossref PubMed Scopus (968) Google Scholar]. The data for these core outcome sets, once agreed upon, should be collected in trials and reported in publications as standard practice in the future. Journal editors now invite researchers to take the lead in beginning this work. What will we do as editors to support them and their colleagues? First, we are drawing wide attention to the CROWN Initiative by publishing this editorial in the journals listed below. We shall ensure that the global research community, which includes our many reviewers, is aware of the need for core outcome sets. Submissions which describe development of core outcome sets, if deemed acceptable after peer review, will be effectively disseminated. Our collaboration is not for enforcing harmony at the expense of innovation. To quote from the COMET home page (www.comet-initiative.org): “The existence or use of a core outcome set does not imply that outcomes in a particular trial should be restricted to those in the relevant core outcome set. Rather, there is an expectation that the core outcomes will be collected and reported, making it easier for the results of trials to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate; while researchers continue to explore other outcomes as well.” We also expect that as new or superior ways of capturing outcomes emerge, core outcome sets will themselves need updating. Producing, disseminating and implementing core outcome sets will ensure that critical and important outcomes with good measurement properties are incorporated and reported. We believe this is the next important step in advancing the usefulness of research, in informing readers, including guideline and policy developers, who are involved in decision-making, and in improving evidence-based practice. The CROWN Initiative is grateful to James Duffy (Trainee Scientific Editor, BJOG) and Louisa Waite (Assistant Editor, BJOG) for the drafting, revision and coordination required for the preparation of this article. Disclosure of interests: None to declare. Note: Reproduced from The Core Outcomes in Women’s Health (CROWN) Initiative with permission from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and John Wiley & Sons Ltd." @default.
• W4249432029 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4249432029 date "2014-09-01" @default.
• W4249432029 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4249432029 title "The Core Outcomes in Women’s Health (CROWN) Initiative" @default.
• W4249432029 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.013" @default.
• W4249432029 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25087190" @default.
• W4249432029 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W4249432029 type Work @default.
• W4249432029 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4249432029 countsByYear W42494320292017 @default.
• W4249432029 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4249432029 hasBestOaLocation W42494320291 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConcept C2164484 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConcept C2778400979 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConceptScore W4249432029C159985019 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConceptScore W4249432029C192562407 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConceptScore W4249432029C199343813 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConceptScore W4249432029C2164484 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConceptScore W4249432029C2778400979 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConceptScore W4249432029C512399662 @default.
• W4249432029 hasConceptScore W4249432029C71924100 @default.
• W4249432029 hasLocation W42494320291 @default.
• W4249432029 hasLocation W42494320292 @default.
• W4249432029 hasOpenAccess W4249432029 @default.
• W4249432029 hasPrimaryLocation W42494320291 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W1974920153 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W1997273309 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W2009286722 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W2354521774 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W2358562809 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W2359394045 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W2361210246 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W2363853110 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W2372605651 @default.
• W4249432029 hasRelatedWork W2409873218 @default.
• W4249432029 hasVolume "180" @default.
• W4249432029 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4249432029 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4249432029 workType "article" @default.