OMERACT conference on outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: introduction, J Rheumatol, vol.20, issue.3, pp.528-558, 1993. ,
The PCORI Perspective on Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, JAMA, vol.312, issue.15, pp.1513-1517, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.2014.11100
A core set of trial outcomes for every medical discipline?, BMJ, vol.350, issue.jan26 8, p.85, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.h85
Driving up the Quality and Relevance of Research Through the Use of Agreed Core Outcomes, Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, vol.17, issue.1, pp.1-2, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393
Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research, Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, vol.11, issue.1, pp.193-205, 2016. ,
DOI : 10.1186/s13063-015-0738-6
Individuals with diabetes preferred that future trials use patient-important outcomes and provide pragmatic inferences, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.64, issue.7, pp.743-751, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.005
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated Available from http, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. ,
Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful, PLOS Medicine, vol.174, issue.7, p.1002049, 2016. ,
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049.t003
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence, The Lancet, vol.374, issue.9683, pp.86-95, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management, The Lancet, vol.383, issue.9912, pp.176-85, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7
How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set, The Lancet, vol.383, issue.9912, pp.156-65, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1
Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research, The Lancet, vol.383, issue.9913, pp.257-66, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5
Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research, The Lancet, vol.383, issue.9913, pp.267-76, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X
Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis, The Lancet, vol.383, issue.9912, pp.166-75, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8
Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste, The Lancet, vol.383, issue.9912, pp.101-105, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6
Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?, The Lancet, vol.387, issue.10027, pp.1573-86, 2016. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4
Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials, BMJ, vol.350, issue.mar24 20, p.809, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.h809
,
, J Clin Epidemiol, vol.68, issue.3, pp.237-282, 2014.
Patient-Important Outcomes in Registered Diabetes Trials, JAMA, vol.299, issue.21, pp.2543-2552, 2008. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.299.21.2543
Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review, BMJ, vol.341, issue.nov01 1, p.5707, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.c5707
Surrogate Outcomes in Clinical Trials, JAMA Internal Medicine, vol.173, issue.8, pp.611-613, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.3037
How Good Is ???Evidence??? from Clinical Studies of Drug Effects and Why Might Such Evidence Fail in the Prediction of the Clinical Utility of Drugs?, Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol.55, issue.1, pp.169-89, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010814-124614
When Are "Positive" Clinical Trials in Oncology Truly Positive?, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol.28, issue.24, pp.16-20, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.9918
Would you trust a surrogate respondent?, The Lancet, vol.349, issue.9053, pp.665-671, 1997. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)60131-6
, The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators. Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction, N Engl J Med, vol.321, issue.6, pp.406-418, 1989.
Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study, BMJ, vol.346, issue.jan29 1, p.457, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.f457
Surrogates under scrutiny: fallible correlations, fatal consequences, BMJ, vol.343, issue.aug15 1, p.5160, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.d5160
Treatment effects on patient-important outcomes can be small, even with large effects on surrogate markers, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.65, issue.9, pp.940-945, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.02.012
Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials, JAMA, vol.291, issue.20, pp.2457-65, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457
Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, vol.1, p.31, 2011. ,
Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials, JAMA, vol.302, issue.9, pp.977-84, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.2009.1242
Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis, Statistics in Medicine, vol.315, issue.3, pp.1547-61, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.622
The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews, BMJ, vol.340, issue.feb15 1, p.365, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.c365
Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review, BMC Medicine, vol.1, issue.9, p.282, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1056/NEJMsa1012065
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol.171, issue.7, pp.735-775, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1503/cmaj.1041086
Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors, BMJ, vol.330, issue.7494, p.753, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F
Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study, BMC Medicine, vol.6, issue.7, p.100, 2016. ,
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Interferon alpha for the adjuvant treatment of cutaneous melanoma, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, vol.6, p.8955, 2013. ,
Systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions frequently consider patient-important outcomes, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.84, pp.70-77, 2017. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.006
Association Between Unreported Outcomes and Effect Size Estimates in Cochrane Meta-analyses, JAMA, vol.297, issue.5, pp.468-70, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.297.5.468-b
Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews, Systematic Reviews, vol.68, issue.3, p.73, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1002/14651858
, The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative [http://www.comet-initiative, Accessed 11, 2017.
, Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research I. Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective, JAMA, vol.307, issue.15, pp.1636-1676, 2012.
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda, JAMA, vol.307, issue.15, pp.1583-1587, 2012. ,
Core outcome sets and trial registries, Trials, vol.346, issue.6, p.216, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.e7586
The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities update (2015), Trials, vol.383, issue.9912, p.54, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8
The COMET initiative database: progress and activities update (2014), Trials, vol.20, issue.1, p.515, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1038/nm0814-798
The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013, Trials, vol.15, issue.1, p.279, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1186/1745-6215-15-279
Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals, PLoS Medicine, vol.5, issue.12, p.1001566, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566.s002
Meta-analysis of repeated measures study designs, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, vol.24, issue.15, pp.941-50, 2008. ,
DOI : 10.1002/0470870168
Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis, PLOS ONE, vol.330, issue.Suppl 1, p.144980, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0144980.s002