↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Summary Twitter Facebook Dimensions citations
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)
Published in
Trials, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0913-9
Pubmed ID
26297658
Authors

Jamie J. Kirkham, Sarah Gorst, Douglas G. Altman, Jane Blazeby, Mike Clarke, Declan Devane, Elizabeth Gargon, Paula R. Williamson

Abstract

Core outcome sets can increase the efficiency and value of research and, as a result, there are an increasing number of studies looking to develop core outcome sets (COS). However, the credibility of a COS depends on both the use of sound methodology in its development and clear and transparent reporting of the processes adopted. To date there is no reporting guideline for reporting COS studies. The aim of this programme of research is to develop a reporting guideline for studies developing COS and to highlight some of the important methodological considerations in the process. The study will include a reporting guideline item generation stage which will then be used in a Delphi study. The Delphi study is anticipated to include two rounds. The first round will ask stakeholders to score the items listed and to add any new items they think are relevant. In the second round of the process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores for all stakeholder groups separately and asked to re-score. A final consensus meeting will be held with an expert panel and stakeholder representatives to review the guideline item list. Following the consensus meeting, a reporting guideline will be drafted and review and testing will be undertaken until the guideline is finalised. The final outcome will be the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guideline for studies developing COS and a supporting explanatory document. To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 33%
Psychology 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 20 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,981,062
of 23,929,753 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,046
of 6,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,080
of 269,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#21
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,929,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.