Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Study protocol

Outcomes for Pressure Ulcer Trials (OUTPUTs): protocol for the development of a core domain set for trials evaluating the clinical efficacy or effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention interventions

Authors: Anna Lechner, Jan Kottner, Susanne Coleman, Delia Muir, Heather Bagley, Dimitri Beeckman, Wendy Chaboyer, Janet Cuddigan, Zena Moore, Claudia Rutherford, Jochen Schmitt, Jane Nixon, Katrin Balzer

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Core outcome sets (COS) are being developed in many clinical areas to increase the quality and comparability of clinical trial results as well as to ensure their relevance for patients. A COS represents an agreed standardized set of outcomes that describes the minimum that should be consistently reported in all clinical trials of a defined area. It comprises a core domain set (defining what core outcomes should be measured) and a core measurement set (defining measurement/assessment instruments for each core domain). For pressure ulcer prevention trials a COS is lacking. The great heterogeneity of reported outcomes in this field indicates the need for a COS.

Methods/design

The first part of this project aims to develop a core domain set by following established methods, which incorporates four steps: (1) definition of the scope, (2) conducting a scoping review, (3) organizing facilitated workshops with service users, (4) performing Delphi surveys and establishing consensus in a face-to-face meeting with different stakeholders.

Discussion

After achieving consensus on the core domain set, further work will be undertaken to determine a corresponding core measurement set. This will lead to better pressure ulcer prevention research in the future. There are a number of methodological challenges in the field of COS development. To meet these challenges and to ensure a high-quality COS, the OUTPUTS project affiliates to current standards and works in close collaboration with international experts and with existing international service user groups.

Trial registration

The OUTPUTs project is registered in the COMET database: (http://​www.​comet-initiative.​org/​studies/​details/​283). Registered on 2015.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.CrossRef Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407–15.CrossRef Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407–15.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sharif MO, et al. A systematic review of outcome measures used in clinical trials of treatment interventions following traumatic dental injuries. Dent Traumatol. 2015;31(6):422–8.CrossRef Sharif MO, et al. A systematic review of outcome measures used in clinical trials of treatment interventions following traumatic dental injuries. Dent Traumatol. 2015;31(6):422–8.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gandhi GY, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA. 2008;299(21):2543–9.CrossRef Gandhi GY, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA. 2008;299(21):2543–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pino C, et al. Outcomes in registered, ongoing randomized controlled trials of patient education. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42934.CrossRef Pino C, et al. Outcomes in registered, ongoing randomized controlled trials of patient education. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42934.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.CrossRef Kirkham JJ, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8:39.CrossRef Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8:39.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Williamson PR, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280.CrossRef Williamson PR, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Tugwell P, et al. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38.CrossRef Tugwell P, et al. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Haywood KL, et al. Developing a core outcome set for hip fracture trials. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-b(8):1016–23.CrossRef Haywood KL, et al. Developing a core outcome set for hip fracture trials. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-b(8):1016–23.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Schmitt J, et al. The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap: a methodological framework to develop core sets of outcome measurements in dermatology. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(1):24–30.CrossRef Schmitt J, et al. The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap: a methodological framework to develop core sets of outcome measurements in dermatology. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(1):24–30.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Van den Bussche K, et al. Core outcome domains in incontinence-associated dermatitis research. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(7):1605–17.CrossRef Van den Bussche K, et al. Core outcome domains in incontinence-associated dermatitis research. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(7):1605–17.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Davis K, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0190695.CrossRef Davis K, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0190695.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Schmitt J, et al. Report from the kick-off meeting of the Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN). Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(2):287–95.CrossRef Schmitt J, et al. Report from the kick-off meeting of the Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN). Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(2):287–95.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Coleman S, et al. A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(10):2222–34.CrossRef Coleman S, et al. A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(10):2222–34.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, E.P.U.A.P.a.P.P.P.I.A. In: Haesler E, editor. Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: Quick reference guide. Perth: Cambridge Media; 2014. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, E.P.U.A.P.a.P.P.P.I.A. In: Haesler E, editor. Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: Quick reference guide. Perth: Cambridge Media; 2014.
19.
go back to reference Hahnel E, et al. The epidemiology of skin conditions in the aged: A systematic review. J Tissue Viability. 2017;26(1):20–8.CrossRef Hahnel E, et al. The epidemiology of skin conditions in the aged: A systematic review. J Tissue Viability. 2017;26(1):20–8.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference VanGilder C, et al. The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey: 2006-2015: A 10-year pressure injury prevalence and demographic trend analysis by care setting. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017;44(1):20–8.CrossRef VanGilder C, et al. The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey: 2006-2015: A 10-year pressure injury prevalence and demographic trend analysis by care setting. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017;44(1):20–8.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference McGinnis E, et al. Pressure ulcer related pain in community populations: a prevalence survey. BMC Nurs. 2014;13:16.CrossRef McGinnis E, et al. Pressure ulcer related pain in community populations: a prevalence survey. BMC Nurs. 2014;13:16.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Gorecki C, et al. Patient-reported pressure ulcer pain: a mixed-methods systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;42(3):443–59.CrossRef Gorecki C, et al. Patient-reported pressure ulcer pain: a mixed-methods systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;42(3):443–59.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Briggs M, et al. The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients. BMC Nurs. 2013;12(1):19.CrossRef Briggs M, et al. The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients. BMC Nurs. 2013;12(1):19.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Gorecki C, et al. Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(7):1175–83.CrossRef Gorecki C, et al. Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(7):1175–83.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Gorecki C, et al. Development of a conceptual framework of health-related quality of life in pressure ulcers: a patient-focused approach. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(12):1525–34.CrossRef Gorecki C, et al. Development of a conceptual framework of health-related quality of life in pressure ulcers: a patient-focused approach. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(12):1525–34.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Moore Z. US Medicare data show incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers is 4.5%, and they are associated with longer hospital stay and higher risk of death. Evid Based Nurs. 2013;16(4):118–9.CrossRef Moore Z. US Medicare data show incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers is 4.5%, and they are associated with longer hospital stay and higher risk of death. Evid Based Nurs. 2013;16(4):118–9.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Dealey C, et al. The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom. J Wound Care. 2012;21(6):261–2 264, 266.CrossRef Dealey C, et al. The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom. J Wound Care. 2012;21(6):261–2 264, 266.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Schuurman JP, et al. Economic evaluation of pressure ulcer care: a cost minimization analysis of preventive strategies. Nurs Econ. 2009;27(6):390–400, 415.PubMed Schuurman JP, et al. Economic evaluation of pressure ulcer care: a cost minimization analysis of preventive strategies. Nurs Econ. 2009;27(6):390–400, 415.PubMed
30.
go back to reference Severens JL, et al. The cost of illness of pressure ulcers in The Netherlands. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2002;15(2):72–7.CrossRef Severens JL, et al. The cost of illness of pressure ulcers in The Netherlands. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2002;15(2):72–7.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Kottner J, et al. Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators. Int Wound J. 2018;15(2):218–24.CrossRef Kottner J, et al. Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators. Int Wound J. 2018;15(2):218–24.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Shi C, et al. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0192707.CrossRef Shi C, et al. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0192707.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Kottner J, Gefen A. Incidence of pressure ulcers as primary outcomes in clinical trials: a comment on McInnes et al. (2012). Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(3):372–4.CrossRef Kottner J, Gefen A. Incidence of pressure ulcers as primary outcomes in clinical trials: a comment on McInnes et al. (2012). Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(3):372–4.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Bader DL, Worsley PR. Technologies to monitor the health of loaded skin tissues. Biomed Eng Online. 2018;17(1):40.CrossRef Bader DL, Worsley PR. Technologies to monitor the health of loaded skin tissues. Biomed Eng Online. 2018;17(1):40.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Pfannes EKB, et al. Patterns and associations of structural and functional cutaneous responses during loading at heel and sacral skin in aged females: A reanalysis of clinical study data. J Tissue Viability. 2018;27(3):123–9.CrossRef Pfannes EKB, et al. Patterns and associations of structural and functional cutaneous responses during loading at heel and sacral skin in aged females: A reanalysis of clinical study data. J Tissue Viability. 2018;27(3):123–9.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Dobos G, et al. Weight-bearing-induced changes in the microtopography and structural stiffness of human skin in vivo following immobility periods. Wound Repair Regen. 2015;23(1):37–43.CrossRef Dobos G, et al. Weight-bearing-induced changes in the microtopography and structural stiffness of human skin in vivo following immobility periods. Wound Repair Regen. 2015;23(1):37–43.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Kottner J, et al. Skin response to sustained loading: A clinical explorative study. J Tissue Viability. 2015;24(3):114–22.CrossRef Kottner J, et al. Skin response to sustained loading: A clinical explorative study. J Tissue Viability. 2015;24(3):114–22.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Smith IL, et al. Exploring the role of pain as an early predictor of category 2 pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e013623.CrossRef Smith IL, et al. Exploring the role of pain as an early predictor of category 2 pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e013623.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Kottner J, et al. Core outcome sets in dermatology: report from the second meeting of the International Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(4):e279–85.CrossRef Kottner J, et al. Core outcome sets in dermatology: report from the second meeting of the International Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(4):e279–85.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLoS Med. 2017;14(11):e1002447.CrossRef Kirkham JJ, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLoS Med. 2017;14(11):e1002447.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Evans I, et al. So what makes for better healthcare? In: Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, editors. Testing treatments: Better research for better healthcare. London: Pinter & Martin; 2011. p. 143–59. Evans I, et al. So what makes for better healthcare? In: Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, editors. Testing treatments: Better research for better healthcare. London: Pinter & Martin; 2011. p. 143–59.
45.
go back to reference Chalmers I, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRef Chalmers I, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Macefield RC, et al. Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Trials. 2014;15:49.CrossRef Macefield RC, et al. Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Trials. 2014;15:49.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Gargon E, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99111.CrossRef Gargon E, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99111.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Peters MD, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.CrossRef Peters MD, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.CrossRef
50.
go back to reference Peterson J, et al. Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2017;29(1):12–6.PubMed Peterson J, et al. Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2017;29(1):12–6.PubMed
51.
go back to reference Tricco AC, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRef Tricco AC, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Dodd S, et al. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:84–92.CrossRef Dodd S, et al. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:84–92.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Boers M, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(7):745–53.CrossRef Boers M, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(7):745–53.CrossRef
55.
go back to reference Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRef Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Dalkey N. An experimental study of group opinion: The Delphi method. Futures. 1969;1(5):408–26.CrossRef Dalkey N. An experimental study of group opinion: The Delphi method. Futures. 1969;1(5):408–26.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Nair R, et al. Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2011;41(2):95–105.CrossRef Nair R, et al. Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2011;41(2):95–105.CrossRef
58.
go back to reference Sinha IP, et al. 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. PLoS Med. 2011;8(1):e1000393.CrossRef Sinha IP, et al. 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. PLoS Med. 2011;8(1):e1000393.CrossRef
60.
go back to reference Schunemann HJ. GRADE: from grading the evidence to developing recommendations. A description of the system and a proposal regarding the transferability of the results of clinical research to clinical practice. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009;103(6):391–400.CrossRef Schunemann HJ. GRADE: from grading the evidence to developing recommendations. A description of the system and a proposal regarding the transferability of the results of clinical research to clinical practice. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009;103(6):391–400.CrossRef
61.
62.
go back to reference Schünemann H, et al., Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. 2013. Schünemann H, et al., Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. 2013.
63.
go back to reference Tong A, et al. Standardised outcomes in nephrology - Haemodialysis (SONG-HD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in haemodialysis. Trials. 2015;16:364.CrossRef Tong A, et al. Standardised outcomes in nephrology - Haemodialysis (SONG-HD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in haemodialysis. Trials. 2015;16:364.CrossRef
64.
go back to reference Toupin-April K, et al. Toward the development of a core set of outcome domains to assess shared decision-making interventions in rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(10):1544–50.CrossRef Toupin-April K, et al. Toward the development of a core set of outcome domains to assess shared decision-making interventions in rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(10):1544–50.CrossRef
65.
go back to reference MacLennan S, et al. A randomized trial comparing three Delphi feedback strategies found no evidence of a difference in a setting with high initial agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;93:1–8.CrossRef MacLennan S, et al. A randomized trial comparing three Delphi feedback strategies found no evidence of a difference in a setting with high initial agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;93:1–8.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference Brookes ST, et al. Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development. Trials. 2016;17(1):409.CrossRef Brookes ST, et al. Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development. Trials. 2016;17(1):409.CrossRef
67.
go back to reference Sandelowski M. Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(3):246–55.CrossRef Sandelowski M. Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(3):246–55.CrossRef
68.
go back to reference Sandelowski M. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24(3):230–40.CrossRef Sandelowski M. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24(3):230–40.CrossRef
70.
go back to reference Nixon J, et al. Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE): using mixed methods (systematic reviews, prospective cohort, case study, consensus and psychometrics) to identify patient and organisational risk, develop a risk assessment tool and patient-reported outcome Quality of Life and Health Utility measures. PGfAR J. 2015;3:6. Nixon J, et al. Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE): using mixed methods (systematic reviews, prospective cohort, case study, consensus and psychometrics) to identify patient and organisational risk, develop a risk assessment tool and patient-reported outcome Quality of Life and Health Utility measures. PGfAR J. 2015;3:6.
72.
go back to reference Harman NL, et al. The importance of integration of stakeholder views in core outcome set development: Otitis media with effusion in children with cleft palate. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129514.CrossRef Harman NL, et al. The importance of integration of stakeholder views in core outcome set development: Otitis media with effusion in children with cleft palate. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129514.CrossRef
73.
go back to reference Gargon E, et al. Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:140–52.CrossRef Gargon E, et al. Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:140–52.CrossRef
74.
go back to reference Kottner J. Moving core outcome sets in dermatology forward. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(5):1010.CrossRef Kottner J. Moving core outcome sets in dermatology forward. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(5):1010.CrossRef
75.
go back to reference Kottner J, Schmitt J. Core outcome sets in dermatology: next steps. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(3):549–50.CrossRef Kottner J, Schmitt J. Core outcome sets in dermatology: next steps. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(3):549–50.CrossRef
76.
go back to reference Young B, Bagley H. Including patients in core outcome set development: issues to consider based on three workshops with around 100 international delegates. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):25.CrossRef Young B, Bagley H. Including patients in core outcome set development: issues to consider based on three workshops with around 100 international delegates. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):25.CrossRef
77.
go back to reference Lamont TJ, et al. Core outcomes in periodontal trials: study protocol for core outcome set development. Trials. 2017;18:436.CrossRef Lamont TJ, et al. Core outcomes in periodontal trials: study protocol for core outcome set development. Trials. 2017;18:436.CrossRef
78.
go back to reference Meher S, et al. Core outcome sets for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: an international Delphi consensus study. Bjog. 2019;126(1):83–93.CrossRef Meher S, et al. Core outcome sets for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: an international Delphi consensus study. Bjog. 2019;126(1):83–93.CrossRef
80.
go back to reference Shireen M, et al. Core outcome sets for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: an international Delphi consensus study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;126(1):83–93. Shireen M, et al. Core outcome sets for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: an international Delphi consensus study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;126(1):83–93.
Metadata
Title
Outcomes for Pressure Ulcer Trials (OUTPUTs): protocol for the development of a core domain set for trials evaluating the clinical efficacy or effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention interventions
Authors
Anna Lechner
Jan Kottner
Susanne Coleman
Delia Muir
Heather Bagley
Dimitri Beeckman
Wendy Chaboyer
Janet Cuddigan
Zena Moore
Claudia Rutherford
Jochen Schmitt
Jane Nixon
Katrin Balzer
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3543-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue