Core Outcome Sets for Pediatric Perioperative Research: An International Stakeholder Engagement Exercise and Consensus Report from the Pediatric Perioperative Outcomes Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".