MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412792517 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000005693

Core Outcome Sets for Pediatric Perioperative Research: An International Stakeholder Engagement Exercise and Consensus Report from the Pediatric Perioperative Outcomes Group

2025· article· en· W4412792517 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul A. Stricker, László Vutskits, Jurgen C. de Graaff, Britta S. von Ungern‐Sternberg, Susan M. Goobie, Yunxia Zuo, Tania Ramos, Heidi M. Meyer, Elsa Taylor, Simon D. Whyte, Claudia Malic, Piedad Cecilia Echeverry-Marín, Wallis T. Muhly, Deying Xie, Suellen M. Walker, Cyrus Razavi, Alexandra Torborg, Joseph P. Cravero, C. Dean Kurth, Ellen Rawlinson, Lei Yang, Ting Xu, M. Ruth Graham, Rob Seal, Aine Sommerfield, Andrew Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins MedicineChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodPerioperativeStakeholder engagementFamily medicinePsychological interventionStakeholderPediatricsNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Identifying the outcomes that matter in clinical research is important, especially those that matter to patients and their parents/guardians. Consistency in outcome reporting enables meaningful assessments of interventions and facilitates comparison of results across trials. The aim of this study was to develop core outcome sets for pediatric perioperative research. METHODS: The authors determined core outcome sets through extensive stakeholder engagement, following a stepwise process as recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. They surveyed patients, parents/guardians, and healthcare providers to elicit views on the importance of perioperative outcomes. These results informed a subsequent Delphi process of expert stakeholder representatives. Final core outcome sets were agreed to after virtual face-to-face meetings of the investigators. RESULTS: A total of 1,178 total subjects were included in the international stakeholder survey: 81 patients ages 8 to 12 yr, 99 patients ages 13 to 17 yr, 587 parents/guardians, and 411 healthcare providers (128 nurses, 147 anesthesiologists, and 136 surgeons). Subjects were recruited in Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United States. Sixty-seven expert stakeholders completed a two-round Delphi, including 7 patient family representatives, 9 surgeons, 7 nurses, and 44 anesthesiologists. Proposed core outcome sets were voted on and unanimously agreed to after the virtual face-to-face meetings for the following populations: neonates, infants, children ages 1 to 12 yr, and adolescents ages 13 to 17 yr. Core outcomes for all populations included cardiovascular or respiratory adverse events, pain, assessment of pain relief, and unplanned medical attention. Quality of recovery was included in all but the neonate population, while return to normal function was also included in the adolescent population. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified perioperative core outcome sets for four age-based pediatric populations. Researchers should include these outcomes in their studies whenever appropriate, in addition to the outcomes specific to their research question.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.516
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.375
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5160.375
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.022
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.571
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.025 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207