Abstract
Results 115 patients and 68 healthcare professionals completed questionnaires (98 and 85 randomised to V1 and V2 respectively). The percentage of PRO items rated as essential in V1 was 31.6% and in V2 63.2% (difference=31.6%, 95% CI 14.2-49.0, P<0.001). Looking at stakeholder groups separately, patients rated 36.8% essential in V1 and 78.9% in V2 (42.1%, 95% CI 23.8-60.4, P<0.0001) and professionals 31.6% in V1 and 18.4% in V2 (13.2%, 95% CI -30.7-4.4, P=0.096).
Highlights
Core outcome sets (COS) are a minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition
What is the effect of patient-reported outcome (PRO) item order on prioritisation of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in the development of a core outcome set?
This study examined the impact of the ordering of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within the questionnaire on their prioritisation
Summary
What is the effect of patient-reported outcome (PRO) item order on prioritisation of PROs in the development of a core outcome set?. Katy Chalmers*, Kerry Avery, Karen Coulman, Natalie Blencowe, Rhiannon Macefield, Chris Metcalfe, Jane Blazeby, Sara Brookes. From 3rd International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference Glasgow, UK. From 3rd International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference Glasgow, UK. 16-17 November 2015
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
