Skip to content


  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Core outcome measures in perioperative and anaesthetic care

Trials201516 (Suppl 1) :P2

  • Published:


  • Healthcare Professional
  • Potential Core
  • Academic Researcher
  • Relevant Stakeholder
  • Medicine Research


There is no current consensus within the anaesthetic and perioperative research community on what outcomes are important, nor how to measure them. This leads to heterogeneity of outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and selective outcome reporting – i.e. a bias towards reporting only statistically significant outcomes [1]. Here we describe an initiative to develop a Core Outcome Set for Anaesthetic and Perioperative Research.


Developing a Core Outcome Set will involve the following stages:
  1. 1.

    Identify and engage relevant stakeholders (patients, healthcare professionals, academic researchers)

  2. 2.

    Identify potential core outcomes: We are conducting systematic reviews of RCTs published from 2005 to 2014 in anaesthesia, surgery and perioperative medicine, to gain a broad overview of the range of outcomes measured and reported in the existing literature. Two systematic reviews will be conducted, one describing clinical outcomes, the other describing patient-reported outcomes. We will also seek views from patients and the public, and from healthcare professionals, on any additional outcomes that should be considered for inclusion in the core set.

  3. 3.

    Iterative Delphi methodology to achieve consensus regarding what outcomes should be included in the final Core Outcome Set

  4. 4.

    Publicise, promote and disseminate the Core Outcome Set for use in future anaesthetic and perioperative medicine research



The importance of robust outcome measurement in perioperative research cannot be overstated. A clear need thus exists for a standardised ‘core’ outcome set. This project aims to bring together patients, clinicians and researchers to analyse outcome measurement in perioperative care, and to agree a standardised core outcome set by mutual consensus.

Authors’ Affiliations

Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, University College Hospital, London, UK
National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, Royal College of Anaesthetists, London, UK


  1. Chan AW, Altman DG: Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005, 330: 753-10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar


© Boney et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.