1. Williamson, P. R. et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 18, 280 (2017).
2. Williamson, P. R. et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 13, 132 (2012).
3. Clarke, M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 8, 39 (2007).
4. Hall, N. J. et al. Outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of appendicitis treatments in children: a systematic review. Trials 16, 275 (2015).
5. Matvienko‐Sikar, K. et al. The value of core outcome sets in health psychology. Br J Health Psychol 25, 377–389 (2020).
6. Willhelm, C. et al. Systematic Cochrane Reviews in Neonatology: A Critical Appraisal. Pediatrics & Neonatology 54, 261–266 (2013).
7. Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C. & Altman, D. G. Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles. JAMA 291, 2457 (2004).
8. Dwan, K. et al. Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias. PLoS ONE 3, e3081 (2008).
9. Wuytack, F., Smith, V., Clarke, M., Williamson, P. & Gargon, E. Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev 4, 73 (2015).
10. Webbe, J., Sinha, I. & Gale, C. Core Outcome Sets. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 103, 163–166 (2018).
11. Kirkham, J. J. et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLoS Med 14, e1002447 (2017).
12. Kirkham, J. J., Clarke, M. & Williamson, P. R. A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ j2262 (2017) doi:10.1136/bmj.j2262.
13. Staniszewska, S. & Denegri, S. Patient and public involvement in research: future challenges. Evid Based Nurs 16, 69–69 (2013).
14. Biggane, A. M., Brading, L., Ravaud, P., Young, B. & Williamson, P. R. Survey indicated that core outcome set development is increasingly including patients, being conducted internationally and using Delphi surveys. Trials 19, 430 (2018).
15. Byrne, M. Increasing the impact of behavior change intervention research: Is there a role for stakeholder engagement? Health Psychology 38, 290–296 (2019).
16. Chalmers, I. et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. The Lancet 383, 156–165 (2014).
17. Gargon, E., Gorst, S. L., Matvienko-Sikar, K. & Williamson, P. R. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 6th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. (under review).
18. Gargon, E., Gorst, S. L. & Williamson, P. R. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PLoS ONE 14, e0225980 (2019).
19. for the COS-STAP Group et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement. Trials 20, 116 (2019).
20. Kirkham, J. J. et al. Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLoS Med 13, e1002148 (2016).
21. Tunis, S. R. et al. Engaging Stakeholders and Promoting Uptake of OMERACT Core Outcome Instrument Sets. J Rheumatol 44, 1551–1559 (2017).
22. Tugwell, P. et al. OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials 8, 38 (2007).
23. Hughes, K. L., Clarke, M. & Williamson, P. R. A systematic review finds core outcome set uptake varies widely across different areas of health. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (in press),.
24. Gargon, E. et al. Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 9, e99111 (2014).
25. Hughes, K. L., Kirkham, J. J., Clarke, M. & Williamson, P. R. Assessing the impact of a research funder’s recommendation to consider core outcome sets. PLoS ONE 14, e0222418 (2019).
26. McGee, D., Lorencatto, F., Matvienko-Sikar, K. & Toomey, E. Surveying knowledge, practice and attitudes towards intervention fidelity within trials of complex healthcare interventions. Trials 19, 504 (2018).
27. Piantadosi, S. Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. (John Wiley & Sons).
28. Fletcher, J., Sheehan, K. J. & Smith, T. O. Barriers to uptake of the hip fracture core outcome set: An international survey of 80 hip fracture trialists. Clinical Trials 174077452094144 (2020) doi:10.1177/1740774520941444.
29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Behaviour change: Individual approaches. (2014).
30. Kelly, M. P. & Barker, M. Why is changing health-related behaviour so difficult? Public Health 136, 109–116 (2016).
31. Kirkham, J. J., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., Clarke, M. & Williamson, P. R. Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials 14, 324 (2013).
32. Prinsen, C. A. C. et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” – a practical guideline. Trials 17, 449 (2016).
33. Gorst, S. L. et al. Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 125, 64–75 (2020).
34. Gargon, E., Williamson, P. R. & Young, B. Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 86, 140–152 (2017).