Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol

Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030" }, "headline": "Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol", "datePublished": "2023-08-23T15:02:22", "dateModified": "2024-07-17T14:36:55", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ruijin Qiu" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Xiaodan Fan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Wenhui Wang" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mike Clarke" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Zhuo Chen" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Shuling Liu" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Paula Williamson" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hongcai Shang" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been introduced in China for about 10 years. In recent years, some Chinese researchers also committed to developing COS, though the majority of COS are ongoing. However, there were more than 500 published COS for research in the COMET database by 2020. The extent of availability of COS for the top 25 diseases with the highest burden in China is unknown. In addition, the uptake of COS in clinical trials for these diseases is unknown, along with the knowledge, perceptions, and views of the clinical trialist community in China on the use of COS in relation to choosing outcomes for their research. Methods The main burden of disease in China will be identified. Then we will search the COMET database to identify if there are ongoing or completed relevant COS research A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. We will extract scopes of published eligible COS, including condition, population, interventions, and core outcomes. Then we will search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry using disease names for each disease that has a published COS. We will assess the overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS. Then we will conduct an online survey and semi-structured interviews to identify the knowledge and perceptions of COS among primary investigators of included clinical trials. Discussion This research will fill in gaps between COS and the burden of disease in China. Understanding clinical trialists’knowledge and perceptions of COS may help dissemination and application of COS in the future. Trial registration This research is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2563. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030", "name": "Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol" } } ] } Home Browse Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Qiu R, Fan X, Wang W et al. Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139282.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Study Protocol Revised Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] Ruijin Qiu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3615-4960 1,2 , Xiaodan Fan 2 , Wenhui Wang 3 , [...] Mike Clarke https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2926-7257 4 , Zhuo Chen 2 , Shuling Liu 2 , Paula Williamson 1 , Hongcai Shang 2 Ruijin Qiu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3615-4960 1,2 , Xiaodan Fan 2 , [...] Wenhui Wang 3 , Mike Clarke https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2926-7257 4 , Zhuo Chen 2 , Shuling Liu 2 , Paula Williamson 1 , Hongcai Shang 2 PUBLISHED 17 Jul 2024 Author details Author details 1 Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education and Beijing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing, China 2 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK 3 College of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China 4 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK Ruijin Qiu Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Xiaodan Fan Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Wenhui Wang Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Mike Clarke Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Zhuo Chen Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Shuling Liu Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Paula Williamson Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Hongcai Shang Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the All trials matter collection. Abstract Background The concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been introduced in China for about 10 years. In recent years, some Chinese researchers also committed to developing COS, though the majority of COS are ongoing. However, there were more than 500 published COS for research in the COMET database by 2020. The extent of availability of COS for the top 25 diseases with the highest burden in China is unknown. In addition, the uptake of COS in clinical trials for these diseases is unknown, along with the knowledge, perceptions, and views of the clinical trialist community in China on the use of COS in relation to choosing outcomes for their research. Methods The main burden of disease in China will be identified. Then we will search the COMET database to identify if there are ongoing or completed relevant COS research A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. We will extract scopes of published eligible COS, including condition, population, interventions, and core outcomes. Then we will search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry using disease names for each disease that has a published COS. We will assess the overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS. Then we will conduct an online survey and semi-structured interviews to identify the knowledge and perceptions of COS among primary investigators of included clinical trials. Discussion This research will fill in gaps between COS and the burden of disease in China. Understanding clinical trialists’knowledge and perceptions of COS may help dissemination and application of COS in the future. Trial registration This research is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2563. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Core outcome sets; clinical trialists; uptake Corresponding Author(s) Paula Williamson ( [email protected] ) Hongcai Shang ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding authors: Paula Williamson, Hongcai Shang Competing interests: PRW and MC are members of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Management Group. Grant information: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81904051) to RQ; the Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CACM (CACM-2019-NRC2-A03) to RQ; the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator Award (NF-SI_0513-10025) to PW; the MRC Trials Methodology Research Partnership (grant reference MR/S014357/1) to PW; and the Qihuang Scholar of National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (RS086) to HS. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funding for the translation of articles was provided by the University of Liverpool. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2024 Qiu R et al . 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. How to cite: Qiu R, Fan X, Wang W et al. Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139282.3 ) First published: 23 Aug 2023, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139282.1 ) Latest published: 17 Jul 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139282.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 A few errors have been changed. A few errors have been changed. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Kim Thomas and Emma Campbell See the authors' detailed response to the review by Zehuai Wen READ REVIEWER RESPONSES 1. Background A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in specific areas of health or health care. 1 The concept of COS was introduced in China in 2013. 2 Chinese researchers have registered more than 80 COS for research in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database by 2022. A search of the COMET database shows that more than 500 completed COS studies have been published by 2021. The number of COS varies by disease category. The top five disease categories are cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, orthopaedics and trauma. 3 However, the number of candidates vary by disease category. In addition, there are more than one COS for some conditions, while no COS exists in some other important conditions. Whether there are gaps between COS research and the burden of disease in China remains unclear. There are some benefits to using COS in clinical trials, which include improving the consistency of outcome reporting, increasing the relevance of outcomes measured to decision-makers, and helping to identify potential selective outcome reporting bias. However, previous research has shown that COS uptake is low in most research areas. 4 , 5 Research shows that clinical trialists’ awareness and understanding of COS may facilitate the use of COS. 6 However, Chinese clinical trialists’ awareness, understanding and using of COS are unknown. The aims of this study are to examine: (1) whether the top 25 diseases with the highest burden in China have relevant COS; (2) the use of COS in clinical trials registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for these 25 diseases; and (3) views of these clinical trialists on the knowledge, perceptions, and use of COS in relation to choosing outcomes, as well as barriers and facilitators to uptake of COS. 2. Methods Mapping of burden of disease in China to COS 2.1 2.1.1 Identification of diseases for study The top 25 causes of disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) in China in 2019 have been identified from the tool of Global Burden of Disease (GBD). 7 Two researchers (RQ and XF) will also discuss subtypes of disease according to practice guidelines or textbook of internal medicine if necessary. The initial list of diseases for the study is shown in Table 1 . Table 1. The initial list of diseases for the study (ranked by number of disability-adjusted life-years). Disease category Burden of disease Subtypes of disease Neurology Stroke Ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage Heart & circulation Ischaemic heart disease Angina pectoris, acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction Lungs & airways Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases / Cancer Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer / Orthopaedics & trauma Road injuries / Ear, nose, & throat Age-related hearing loss / Orthopaedics & trauma Low back pain / Endocrine & metabolic Diabetes mellitus type 2 Diabetes mellitus type 2 Cancer Stomach cancer / Neurology Migraine / Mental disorders Depressive disorders Depression, dysthymia Orthopaedics & trauma Falls Neonatal Neonatal disorders Neonatal preterm birth Neonatal encephalopathy due birth asphyxia and trauma Neonatal sepsis and other neonatal infections Hemolytic disease and other neonatal jaundice Other neonatal disorders Orthopaedics & trauma Neck pain Cancer Colon and rectum cancer Colorectal cancer Muscle disease Other musculoskeletal disorders Exclude: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis Neurology Alzheimer's disease and other dementias Alzheimer’s disease Dementia Kidney disease Chronic kidney disease Chronic kidney disease due to diabetes mellitus type 1 Chronic kidney disease due to diabetes mellitus type 2 Chronic kidney disease due to hypertension Chronic kidney disease due to glomerulonephritis Chronic kidney disease due to other and unspecified causes Cancer Esophageal cancer / Heart & circulation Hypertensive heart disease / Cancer Liver cancer Liver cancer due to hepatitis B, liver cancer due to hepatitis C, liver cancer due to alcohol use, liver cancer due to NASH, liver cancer due to other causes Infectious disease Total burden related to hepatitis B / Sense organ diseases Blindness and vision loss Glaucoma, cataract, age-related macular degeneration, refraction disorders, near vision loss, other vision loss Muscle disease Osteoarthritis / Mental disorders Anxiety disorders / 2.1.2 Identification of relevant COS We will manually search the COMET database and identify all COS for diseases/subtypes in the diseases list. We will identify if there are ongoing or completed relevant COS research. The study began on April 7 th , 2023 and is ongoing. 2.1.3 Inclusion criteria for COS (1) The scope appears relevant to a disease in the diseases list; (2) COS for research should have included patient participants; RQ will identify COS from the COMET database, and XF will check the results. Any discrepancies will be resolved by consensus discussion or by consulting a third reviewer (PW). RQ and PW will discuss all the COS for the 25 causes of DALY and determine which COS are eligible. The criterion related to the inclusion of patient participants follows previous work examining uptake of specific COS, and reflects the impact of patient participation on the choice of core outcomes. 8 The aim of COS is to promote a single unified approach to evaluating outcomes in a given condition throughout the world, however only 30% of COS published up to the end of 2021 have included participants from anywhere in Asia, 8 and the majority of COS developed in China are focused on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). To explore whether the uptake of COS is influenced by whether it was developed by Chinese researchers, we will additionally include a COS published in a Chinese language journal if one meets the inclusion criteria above. 2.1.4 Data extraction We will describe the number of ongoing and published COS for the highest burden of disease in China. Full texts will be retrieved for published COS only. Previous COMET systematic reviews, and ongoing inclusion of published COS by COMET, will be used for details of published COS relevant to this work. Data extraction will include the intended use of recommendations, disease category, disease name, population characteristics (age, sex), interventions, geographical locations of COS developers, geographical locations of COS participants will be extracted, and whether patients participated. 2.1.5 Data analysis Descriptive analysis will be used for general characteristics of COS. Exploring uptake of COS in trialists in China 2.2 2.2.1 Identification of clinical trials in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry We will search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/historyversionpub.aspx ) according to the disease name extracted for the published COS. 2.2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria for clinical trials Inclusion criteria for clinical trials: (1) Randomised and non-randomised clinical trials; (2) The objectives of clinical trials are for disease therapy; (3) The prospective registration time should be in 2021 and 2022. Exclusion criteria for clinical trials: The clinical trials are to assess the mechanisms of effect of interventions. If the disease name in the COS is broader, we will further search subtypes of disease. RQ and XF will discuss the list of subtypes of disease, any disagreement will be discussed with a third investigator (HS). XF, WW, ZC, and SL will search for clinical trials from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify the eligible clinical trials. RQ will check the results. 2.2.3 Comparison of COS with clinical trials Inclusion criteria: (1) An eligible COS exists published since 2012. (2) The number of clinical trials with matching scope to an eligible COS is not less than 40. A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. A COS developed by Chinese researchers may be significant for Chinese clinical trialists. If there is an eligible COS developed by Chinese researchers, it will be included. If it does not meet the inclusion criteria for comparison of COS with clinical trials, then the prospective registration time for clinical trials will be expanded. An online survey will be sent to trialists who registered clinical trials which are relevant to a specific COS. We anticipate a 50% non-response rate, thus if the number of trials is too small, it will be difficult to obtain a reasonable spread of perspectives from trialists about the use of the relevant COS. It was felt that responses from 20 trialists would be helpful based on a typical number of participants involved in qualitative research, thus requiring an anticipated 40 registered trials. 2.2.4 Data extraction and analysis Data extraction for COS will include: author, title, publication time, condition, population, intervention, outcomes, and outcome measurement instruments (if applicable). Contact details of trialists (including applicant’s name, the registration contact person’s email and telephone number, the primary investigator’s name, the primary investigator’s email and telephone number) will be extracted, because they will be invited to participate in the online survey. The other data extracted will include: title, the primary investigator’s institutions, study type, disease name, population, intervention, outcomes, and outcome measurement instruments. For comparing trial outcomes and COS, only published COS will be used. If there are more than two COS for a specific disease, the differences in scope between these COS will be discussed by two reviewers. We will compare the overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS according to the framework used in previous research. 9 The framework is shown in Table 2 . Table 2. The framework for assessing overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS. Intervention COS is narrow Exact match COS is broader Different intervention Population COS is narrow A B C D Exact match E F G H COS is broader I J K L Different subgroup of the population M N O P We will calculate the median percentages of outcomes in each clinical trial that were specific matches, general matches, and non-matches with outcomes in each relevant COS. We will calculate the proportion of outcomes that overlap between the COS and clinical trials for each disease. Exploring awareness, barriers and facilitators to uptake COS by trialists 2.3 2.3.1 Online survey 2.3.1.1 The process of online survey A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who have registered or completed a clinical trial that has overlapped scope between the trial and COS. We will identify the primary investigator’s name, email, and telephone number when we extract eligible clinical trials from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. We will send a Chinese translation of the COS deemed relevant to the trialists’ trials with questionnaire. When the primary investigators cannot be contacted via emails, the applicants for registration will be approached. We will examine trialists’ knowledge and awareness of COS. An online survey will be sent to clinical trialists, with one of three versions of the survey: 1) clinical trialists who report a full COS in their clinical trials; 2) clinical trialists who report only a few of outcomes in the COS; and 3) clinical trialists who do not report any outcome in the COS. The survey will include both closed and open-ended questions. General information, such as gender, age, participants’ role (clinicians or researcher), specialty (traditional Chinese medicine, integrative medicine, or Western medicine), work experience, geographical area, professional qualification, and educational background will be collected. We will refer to the facilitators and barriers identified in previous research, including using of COS and clinical practice guidelines, 10 , 11 to develop open and closed questions to ask all participants. MK, PW, and RQ will discuss the questions in the questionnaires. The survey and other tools will be distributed into Chinese. RQ will translate tools into Chinese and the translation will then be sent to several researchers who have experience in COS research from a Chinese authors’ team and we will ask them to give comments. RQ, SL, ZC, and WW will discuss and determine the translation before distribution. The structured questions in the survey are shown in extended data. At the end of each survey, we will ask the trialists if they would like to attend a semi-structured interview. 2.3.1.2 Data analysis Closed questions will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Ratings for the barriers and facilitators to uptake will be summarized in terms of the median, range, and interquartile range. For open questions, thematic analysis will be used. All free text will be extracted in to a word document which RQ will read multiple times to organize the text into some initial themes and the author team will review the data and its assignment to the themes identified. The reason why the trialists used or did not use COS will be analyzed by content analysis. New suggested potential barriers and facilitators will be mapped to different themes. 2.3.2 Semi-structured interviews 2.3.2.1 The process of semi-structured interviews We will invite trialists who agree to be interviewed to attend an in-person or online interview, if saturation is reached, the interviews will be completed. The COS publication, translated into Chinese, will be sent to them before the interview. The topic guide is as follows: 1. How many years of experience do you have in the design, management, or analysis clinical trials? 2. How many clinical trials did you participate in the design, management, or analysis? 3. When you design a clinical trial, how did you choose outcomes? 4. Do you know what is COS? 5. Are you familiar with COS? 6. Can you define COS? 7. How comfortable you are with English? 8. How did you become familiar with COS? 9. If there is a relevant COS in your research area, do you want to use it? Why? 10. Whether you know the COS that we sent you? Will you use it in your next trial? 11. What kind of facilitators and barriers for you to use a COS in clinical trial? 12. In your opinion, what should be done to improve the use of COS? 2.3.2.2 Data analysis General characteristics of interviewees will be presented using descriptive methods. The trialist’s awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS will be described, and the reasons why trialists used or did not use COS will be analyzed by content analysis. Dissemination 2.4 The finding of this research will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed publication, and social media. 3. Discussion COS have been introduced in China for about 10 years. Chinese trialists’ knowledge and awareness of using COS are important to COS developers in China. This study will provide information on the proportion of trialists in China who registered clinical trials in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry in the areas with the highest burden of disease, and how the outcomes they chose compare to existing COS. COS are very important for reducing heterogeneity of outcome reporting, potential bias, and research waste when they are used in clinical trials. There are hundreds of COS published in the world. Chinese researchers are also developing COS in some health areas, whether there is a gap between COS and the burden of disease in China remains unclear. This research will provide evidence relevant to COS researchers and clinical trialists. Ethics and consent The project has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (2023DZMEC-175-01). The ethical approval agreed to not getting written informed consent from the participants, because they are clinical trialists. Trial registration: This research is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2563 . Data availability statement Underlying data No data are associated with this article. Extended data DANS-EASY; Questionnaire of trialists’ perceptions in COS. https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-ze4-tby3 . 12 This project contains the following extended data: • Questionnaire of trialists’ perceptions in COS(1).pdf. (English version of survey). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgments We thank the China Scholarship Council for supporting this research. We are grateful to Jamlick Karumbi, from the University of Liverpool for his share on the experience of developing questionnaire. References 1. The COMET initiative. [Accessed March 26, 2024]. Reference Source 2. Zhang L, Zhang J, Chen J, et al. : Clinical research of traditional chinese medicine needs to develop its own system of core outcome sets. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2013; 2013 : 202703. 3. Gargon E, Gorst SL, Matvienko-Sikar K, et al. : Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 6th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (1): e0244878. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 4. Williamson PR, Barrington H, Blazeby JM, et al. : Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2022; 150 : 154–164. Publisher Full Text 5. Matvienko-Sikar K, Avery K, Blazeby JM, et al. : Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2022; 142 : 19–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Hughes KL, Williamson PR, Young B: In-depth qualitative interviews identified barriers and facilitators that influenced chief investigators’ use of core outcome sets in randomised controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2022; 144 : 111–120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 7. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. [Accessed March 26, 2024]. Reference Source 8. Dodd S, Gorst SL, Young A, et al. : Patient participation impacts outcome domain selection in core outcome sets for research: an updated systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2023; 158 :127–133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 9. Saldanha IJ, Dodd S, Gorst SL, et al. : More than half of systematic reviews have relevant core outcome sets. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021; 136 : 168–179. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Hughes KL, Williamson PR, Young B: In-depth qualitative interviews identified barriers and facilitators that influenced chief investigators’ use of core outcome sets in randomised controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2022; 144 : 111–120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 11. Ciro Correa V, Helena Lugo-Agudelo L, Camilo Aguirre-Acevedo D, et al. : Individual, health system, and contextual barriers and facilitators for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic metareview. 12. Qiu R: Questionnaire of trialists’ perceptions in COS. Dataset. DANS. 2023. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 23 Aug 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education and Beijing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing, China 2 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK 3 College of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China 4 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK Ruijin Qiu Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Xiaodan Fan Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Wenhui Wang Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Mike Clarke Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Zhuo Chen Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Shuling Liu Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Resources Paula Williamson Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Hongcai Shang Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision Competing interests PRW and MC are members of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Management Group. Grant information This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81904051) to RQ; the Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CACM (CACM-2019-NRC2-A03) to RQ; the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator Award (NF-SI_0513-10025) to PW; the MRC Trials Methodology Research Partnership (grant reference MR/S014357/1) to PW; and the Qihuang Scholar of National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (RS086) to HS. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funding for the translation of articles was provided by the University of Liverpool. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 17 Jul 2024, 12:1030 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139282.3 version 2 Revised Published: 28 Mar 2024, 12:1030 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139282.2 version 1 Published: 23 Aug 2023, 12:1030 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139282.1 Copyright © 2024 Qiu R et al . 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. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Qiu R, Fan X, Wang W et al. Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139282.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 28 Mar 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Thomas K and Campbell E. Reviewer Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164025.r260341 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v2#referee-response-260341 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 05 Apr 2024 Kim Thomas , Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Emma Campbell , Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164025.r260341 No further ... Continue reading READ ALL No further comments to make. Competing Interests: KT is a member of the Executive Group for The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema and sits on the Methods Committee for the C3 initiative. I confirm that this potential conflict of interest did not affect my ability to write an objective and unbiased review of the article. Reviewer Expertise: Applied health research, core outcome sets, development and validation of outcome instruments We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Thomas K and Campbell E. Reviewer Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164025.r260341 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v2#referee-response-260341 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Aug 2023 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Thomas K and Campbell E. Reviewer Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.152547.r243145 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v1#referee-response-243145 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 Feb 2024 Kim Thomas , Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Emma Campbell , Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.152547.r243145 Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol Thank you for asking for a review of this interesting study protocol. Overall, the protocol is well written. The authors ... Continue reading READ ALL Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol Thank you for asking for a review of this interesting study protocol. Overall, the protocol is well written. The authors state that the two aims of this protocol are to: Determine whether ongoing and completed COS are relevant to the disease burden in China. Find out whether clinical trialists in China use published COS in their trials. They have identified the top 25 disease categories in China, based on the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). They plan to search the COMET database to find ongoing and published Core Outcome Sets (COS) that have been added since 2012, that are relevant to these 25 disease categories. They will also search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry to identify clinical trials (registered 2021-2022) in the 25 disease categories that list outcomes that match the outcomes in the disease-specific COS. This will give an indication of whether ongoing and completed COS are relevant to the disease burden in China. For further analysis, individual clinical trials will be analysed to see whether an appropriate COS exists for the disease in question. Each trial also has to meet the inclusion criteria of there being at least 40 clinical trials that match to each specific COS. Lead investigators of the selected clinical trials will then be surveyed, and some will be interviewed, on their views of COS. This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of disease in China to published COS. Exploring uptake of COS in trials registered on the Chinese clinical trials registry. Mixed methods study to establish awareness, barriers and facilitators to COS uptake (including both an initial survey and subsequent interview study). It might have been helpful to describe these three aspects separately, with specific aims, objectives and methods for each. Not all of the studies aims and objectives are clearly articulated in the existing two aims. The authors suggest that specific COS may be required to evaluate interventions testing Chinese Medicine and that uptake of COS developed in China might be higher than uptake of COS developed internationally. I am a little worried that such a stance goes against the very essence of what COS initiatives are trying to do. Namely to promote a single unified approach to evaluating outcomes in a given condition throughout the world. I am not yet convinced that a COS specific to Chinese Medicine is helpful or required. The approach of focussing on the top 25 diseases by burden of disease in China is interesting and should help to focus the study, although this still represents a lot of work. It is not clear why only COS published since 2012 are included. If a disease category has a gold-standard COS that was published pre-2012 (e.g the work of the OMERACT group), this protocol would count the disease category as having no COS, which seems a shame. It is proposed that the COS identified through a search of the COMET database will be evaluated for quality. Whilst this is a laudable ambition, there was very little detail provided as to exactly how this would be done and what the cut-off for meeting the quality standard might be. Rather than excluding COS based on their quality status, I wonder if it would be more useful to include all identified COS, and to report the quality ratings descriptively. At least this information would then be in the public domain and could avoid wasted effort of people repeating these quality assessments. One of the specified inclusion criteria for study 2 (uptake of COS in clinical trials and studies) required that there be “not less than 40 trials for a given condition”. It might be helpful to add an explanation as to why this was included. If trials are only included in cases where at least 40 of them match a specific COS, the authors are not capturing up to 39 trials per disease category. Similarly, in the section describing data extraction, it might be helpful to signpost to the fact that study 3 will require the contact details of clinical trialist who have been identified in study 2. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering why this information was being extracted from the registry data. In the data extraction section, it states that ‘data will be retrieved from previous COMET systematic reviews’ but it is not clear how this information will be used in the protocol. We have suggested a few minor wording amendments to improve readability: Background Suggest amend to: “There are some benefits to using COS in clinical trials, which include improving the consistency of outcome reporting, increasing the relevance of outcomes measured to decision-makers, and helping to identify potential selective outcome reporting bias.” Methods Confusing typo in survey section says ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who will conduct a clinical trial’ – should this be ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who have conducted a clinical trial’? In the survey, there is a question about whether the respondent is a working in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Integrative Medicine or Western Medicine. Integrative Medicine is not mentioned anywhere in the protocol. We wish the authors good luck with conducting this study and look forward to reading the results. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: KT is a member of the Executive Group for The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema and sits on the Methods Committee for the C3 initiative.I confirm that this potential conflict of interest did not affect my ability to write an objective and unbiased review of the article. Reviewer Expertise: Applied health research, core outcome sets, development and validation of outcome instruments We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Thomas K and Campbell E. Reviewer Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.152547.r243145 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v1#referee-response-243145 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Apr 2024 Ruijin Qiu , University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK 12 Apr 2024 Author Response Reviewer comment 1 . This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of ... Continue reading Reviewer comment 1 . This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of disease in China to published COS. Exploring uptake of COS in trials registered on the Chinese clinical trials registry. Mixed methods study to establish awareness, barriers and facilitators to COS uptake (including both an initial survey and subsequent interview study). It might have been helpful to describe these three aspects separately, with specific aims, objectives and methods for each. Not all of the studies aims and objectives are clearly articulated in the existing two aims. Author response 1. The three aims were listed in the final paragraph of the Background section, and the methods for each are described in separate subsections of the Methods section. Reviewer comment 2 . The authors suggest that specific COS may be required to evaluate interventions testing Chinese Medicine and that uptake of COS developed in China might be higher than uptake of COS developed internationally. I am a little worried that such a stance goes against the very essence of what COS initiatives are trying to do. Namely to promote a single unified approach to evaluating outcomes in a given condition throughout the world. I am not yet convinced that a COS specific to Chinese Medicine is helpful or required. Author response 2. We did not intend to suggest that, and have included the rationale for including a COS developed by Chinese researchers in the protocol. Reviewer comment 3 . The approach of focussing on the top 25 diseases by burden of disease in China is interesting and should help to focus the study, although this still represents a lot of work. It is not clear why only COS published since 2012 are included. If a disease category has a gold-standard COS that was published pre-2012 (e.g the work of the OMERACT group), this protocol would count the disease category as having no COS, which seems a shame. Author response 3. All COS will be analyzed in the mapping of burden of disease in China to COS. A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. It has been clarified in the methods. Reviewer comment 4. It is proposed that the COS identified through a search of the COMET database will be evaluated for quality. Whilst this is a laudable ambition, there was very little detail provided as to exactly how this would be done and what the cut-off for meeting the quality standard might be. Rather than excluding COS based on their quality status, I wonder if it would be more useful to include all identified COS, and to report the quality ratings descriptively. At least this information would then be in the public domain and could avoid wasted effort of people repeating these quality assessments. Author response 4. We have clarified that we will use patient participation in COS development as a marker of methodological quality, with the rationale provided. Reviewer comment 5. One of the specified inclusion criteria for study 2 (uptake of COS in clinical trials and studies) required that there be “not less than 40 trials for a given condition”. It might be helpful to add an explanation as to why this was included. If trials are only included in cases where at least 40 of them match a specific COS, the authors are not capturing up to 39 trials per disease category. Author response 5. The online survey will be sent to trialists who registered clinical trials which are relevant to a specific COS. We anticipate a 50% non-response rate, thus if the number of trials is too small, it will be difficult to obtain a reasonable spread of perspectives from trialists about the use of the relevant COS. It was felt that responses from 20 trialists would be helpful based on a typical number of participants involved in qualitative research, thus requiring an anticipated 40 trials This rationale has been explained in the methods (2.2.3). Reviewer comment 6. Similarly, in the section describing data extraction, it might be helpful to signpost to the fact that study 3 will require the contact details of clinical trialist who have been identified in study 2. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering why this information was being extracted from the registry data. Author response 6. This has been explained in 2.2.4. Reviewer comment 7. In the data extraction section, it states that ‘data will be retrieved from previous COMET systematic reviews’ but it is not clear how this information will be used in the protocol. Author response 7. Previous COMET systematic reviews, and ongoing inclusion of published COS by COMET, will be used for details of published COS relevant to this work. Data extraction will include the intended use of recommendations, disease category, disease name, population characteristics (age, sex), interventions, geographical locations of COS developers, geographical locations of COS participants will be extracted, and whether patients participated. This has been explained in 2.1.4. Reviewer comment 8. We have suggested a few minor wording amendments to improve readability: Background Suggest amend to: “There are some benefits to using COS in clinical trials, which include improving the consistency of outcome reporting, increasing the relevance of outcomes measured to decision-makers, and helping to identify potential selective outcome reporting bias.” Methods Confusing typo in survey section says ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who will conduct a clinical trial’ – should this be ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who have conducted a clinical trial’? Author response 8. We have made these changes in the manuscript. Reviewer comment 9. In the survey, there is a question about whether the respondent is a working in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Integrative Medicine or Western Medicine. Integrative Medicine is not mentioned anywhere in the protocol. Author response 9. The text has been amended. Reviewer comment 1 . This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of disease in China to published COS. Exploring uptake of COS in trials registered on the Chinese clinical trials registry. Mixed methods study to establish awareness, barriers and facilitators to COS uptake (including both an initial survey and subsequent interview study). It might have been helpful to describe these three aspects separately, with specific aims, objectives and methods for each. Not all of the studies aims and objectives are clearly articulated in the existing two aims. Author response 1. The three aims were listed in the final paragraph of the Background section, and the methods for each are described in separate subsections of the Methods section. Reviewer comment 2 . The authors suggest that specific COS may be required to evaluate interventions testing Chinese Medicine and that uptake of COS developed in China might be higher than uptake of COS developed internationally. I am a little worried that such a stance goes against the very essence of what COS initiatives are trying to do. Namely to promote a single unified approach to evaluating outcomes in a given condition throughout the world. I am not yet convinced that a COS specific to Chinese Medicine is helpful or required. Author response 2. We did not intend to suggest that, and have included the rationale for including a COS developed by Chinese researchers in the protocol. Reviewer comment 3 . The approach of focussing on the top 25 diseases by burden of disease in China is interesting and should help to focus the study, although this still represents a lot of work. It is not clear why only COS published since 2012 are included. If a disease category has a gold-standard COS that was published pre-2012 (e.g the work of the OMERACT group), this protocol would count the disease category as having no COS, which seems a shame. Author response 3. All COS will be analyzed in the mapping of burden of disease in China to COS. A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. It has been clarified in the methods. Reviewer comment 4. It is proposed that the COS identified through a search of the COMET database will be evaluated for quality. Whilst this is a laudable ambition, there was very little detail provided as to exactly how this would be done and what the cut-off for meeting the quality standard might be. Rather than excluding COS based on their quality status, I wonder if it would be more useful to include all identified COS, and to report the quality ratings descriptively. At least this information would then be in the public domain and could avoid wasted effort of people repeating these quality assessments. Author response 4. We have clarified that we will use patient participation in COS development as a marker of methodological quality, with the rationale provided. Reviewer comment 5. One of the specified inclusion criteria for study 2 (uptake of COS in clinical trials and studies) required that there be “not less than 40 trials for a given condition”. It might be helpful to add an explanation as to why this was included. If trials are only included in cases where at least 40 of them match a specific COS, the authors are not capturing up to 39 trials per disease category. Author response 5. The online survey will be sent to trialists who registered clinical trials which are relevant to a specific COS. We anticipate a 50% non-response rate, thus if the number of trials is too small, it will be difficult to obtain a reasonable spread of perspectives from trialists about the use of the relevant COS. It was felt that responses from 20 trialists would be helpful based on a typical number of participants involved in qualitative research, thus requiring an anticipated 40 trials This rationale has been explained in the methods (2.2.3). Reviewer comment 6. Similarly, in the section describing data extraction, it might be helpful to signpost to the fact that study 3 will require the contact details of clinical trialist who have been identified in study 2. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering why this information was being extracted from the registry data. Author response 6. This has been explained in 2.2.4. Reviewer comment 7. In the data extraction section, it states that ‘data will be retrieved from previous COMET systematic reviews’ but it is not clear how this information will be used in the protocol. Author response 7. Previous COMET systematic reviews, and ongoing inclusion of published COS by COMET, will be used for details of published COS relevant to this work. Data extraction will include the intended use of recommendations, disease category, disease name, population characteristics (age, sex), interventions, geographical locations of COS developers, geographical locations of COS participants will be extracted, and whether patients participated. This has been explained in 2.1.4. Reviewer comment 8. We have suggested a few minor wording amendments to improve readability: Background Suggest amend to: “There are some benefits to using COS in clinical trials, which include improving the consistency of outcome reporting, increasing the relevance of outcomes measured to decision-makers, and helping to identify potential selective outcome reporting bias.” Methods Confusing typo in survey section says ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who will conduct a clinical trial’ – should this be ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who have conducted a clinical trial’? Author response 8. We have made these changes in the manuscript. Reviewer comment 9. In the survey, there is a question about whether the respondent is a working in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Integrative Medicine or Western Medicine. Integrative Medicine is not mentioned anywhere in the protocol. Author response 9. The text has been amended. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Apr 2024 Ruijin Qiu , University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK 12 Apr 2024 Author Response Reviewer comment 1 . This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of ... Continue reading Reviewer comment 1 . This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of disease in China to published COS. Exploring uptake of COS in trials registered on the Chinese clinical trials registry. Mixed methods study to establish awareness, barriers and facilitators to COS uptake (including both an initial survey and subsequent interview study). It might have been helpful to describe these three aspects separately, with specific aims, objectives and methods for each. Not all of the studies aims and objectives are clearly articulated in the existing two aims. Author response 1. The three aims were listed in the final paragraph of the Background section, and the methods for each are described in separate subsections of the Methods section. Reviewer comment 2 . The authors suggest that specific COS may be required to evaluate interventions testing Chinese Medicine and that uptake of COS developed in China might be higher than uptake of COS developed internationally. I am a little worried that such a stance goes against the very essence of what COS initiatives are trying to do. Namely to promote a single unified approach to evaluating outcomes in a given condition throughout the world. I am not yet convinced that a COS specific to Chinese Medicine is helpful or required. Author response 2. We did not intend to suggest that, and have included the rationale for including a COS developed by Chinese researchers in the protocol. Reviewer comment 3 . The approach of focussing on the top 25 diseases by burden of disease in China is interesting and should help to focus the study, although this still represents a lot of work. It is not clear why only COS published since 2012 are included. If a disease category has a gold-standard COS that was published pre-2012 (e.g the work of the OMERACT group), this protocol would count the disease category as having no COS, which seems a shame. Author response 3. All COS will be analyzed in the mapping of burden of disease in China to COS. A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. It has been clarified in the methods. Reviewer comment 4. It is proposed that the COS identified through a search of the COMET database will be evaluated for quality. Whilst this is a laudable ambition, there was very little detail provided as to exactly how this would be done and what the cut-off for meeting the quality standard might be. Rather than excluding COS based on their quality status, I wonder if it would be more useful to include all identified COS, and to report the quality ratings descriptively. At least this information would then be in the public domain and could avoid wasted effort of people repeating these quality assessments. Author response 4. We have clarified that we will use patient participation in COS development as a marker of methodological quality, with the rationale provided. Reviewer comment 5. One of the specified inclusion criteria for study 2 (uptake of COS in clinical trials and studies) required that there be “not less than 40 trials for a given condition”. It might be helpful to add an explanation as to why this was included. If trials are only included in cases where at least 40 of them match a specific COS, the authors are not capturing up to 39 trials per disease category. Author response 5. The online survey will be sent to trialists who registered clinical trials which are relevant to a specific COS. We anticipate a 50% non-response rate, thus if the number of trials is too small, it will be difficult to obtain a reasonable spread of perspectives from trialists about the use of the relevant COS. It was felt that responses from 20 trialists would be helpful based on a typical number of participants involved in qualitative research, thus requiring an anticipated 40 trials This rationale has been explained in the methods (2.2.3). Reviewer comment 6. Similarly, in the section describing data extraction, it might be helpful to signpost to the fact that study 3 will require the contact details of clinical trialist who have been identified in study 2. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering why this information was being extracted from the registry data. Author response 6. This has been explained in 2.2.4. Reviewer comment 7. In the data extraction section, it states that ‘data will be retrieved from previous COMET systematic reviews’ but it is not clear how this information will be used in the protocol. Author response 7. Previous COMET systematic reviews, and ongoing inclusion of published COS by COMET, will be used for details of published COS relevant to this work. Data extraction will include the intended use of recommendations, disease category, disease name, population characteristics (age, sex), interventions, geographical locations of COS developers, geographical locations of COS participants will be extracted, and whether patients participated. This has been explained in 2.1.4. Reviewer comment 8. We have suggested a few minor wording amendments to improve readability: Background Suggest amend to: “There are some benefits to using COS in clinical trials, which include improving the consistency of outcome reporting, increasing the relevance of outcomes measured to decision-makers, and helping to identify potential selective outcome reporting bias.” Methods Confusing typo in survey section says ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who will conduct a clinical trial’ – should this be ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who have conducted a clinical trial’? Author response 8. We have made these changes in the manuscript. Reviewer comment 9. In the survey, there is a question about whether the respondent is a working in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Integrative Medicine or Western Medicine. Integrative Medicine is not mentioned anywhere in the protocol. Author response 9. The text has been amended. Reviewer comment 1 . This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of disease in China to published COS. Exploring uptake of COS in trials registered on the Chinese clinical trials registry. Mixed methods study to establish awareness, barriers and facilitators to COS uptake (including both an initial survey and subsequent interview study). It might have been helpful to describe these three aspects separately, with specific aims, objectives and methods for each. Not all of the studies aims and objectives are clearly articulated in the existing two aims. Author response 1. The three aims were listed in the final paragraph of the Background section, and the methods for each are described in separate subsections of the Methods section. Reviewer comment 2 . The authors suggest that specific COS may be required to evaluate interventions testing Chinese Medicine and that uptake of COS developed in China might be higher than uptake of COS developed internationally. I am a little worried that such a stance goes against the very essence of what COS initiatives are trying to do. Namely to promote a single unified approach to evaluating outcomes in a given condition throughout the world. I am not yet convinced that a COS specific to Chinese Medicine is helpful or required. Author response 2. We did not intend to suggest that, and have included the rationale for including a COS developed by Chinese researchers in the protocol. Reviewer comment 3 . The approach of focussing on the top 25 diseases by burden of disease in China is interesting and should help to focus the study, although this still represents a lot of work. It is not clear why only COS published since 2012 are included. If a disease category has a gold-standard COS that was published pre-2012 (e.g the work of the OMERACT group), this protocol would count the disease category as having no COS, which seems a shame. Author response 3. All COS will be analyzed in the mapping of burden of disease in China to COS. A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. It has been clarified in the methods. Reviewer comment 4. It is proposed that the COS identified through a search of the COMET database will be evaluated for quality. Whilst this is a laudable ambition, there was very little detail provided as to exactly how this would be done and what the cut-off for meeting the quality standard might be. Rather than excluding COS based on their quality status, I wonder if it would be more useful to include all identified COS, and to report the quality ratings descriptively. At least this information would then be in the public domain and could avoid wasted effort of people repeating these quality assessments. Author response 4. We have clarified that we will use patient participation in COS development as a marker of methodological quality, with the rationale provided. Reviewer comment 5. One of the specified inclusion criteria for study 2 (uptake of COS in clinical trials and studies) required that there be “not less than 40 trials for a given condition”. It might be helpful to add an explanation as to why this was included. If trials are only included in cases where at least 40 of them match a specific COS, the authors are not capturing up to 39 trials per disease category. Author response 5. The online survey will be sent to trialists who registered clinical trials which are relevant to a specific COS. We anticipate a 50% non-response rate, thus if the number of trials is too small, it will be difficult to obtain a reasonable spread of perspectives from trialists about the use of the relevant COS. It was felt that responses from 20 trialists would be helpful based on a typical number of participants involved in qualitative research, thus requiring an anticipated 40 trials This rationale has been explained in the methods (2.2.3). Reviewer comment 6. Similarly, in the section describing data extraction, it might be helpful to signpost to the fact that study 3 will require the contact details of clinical trialist who have been identified in study 2. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering why this information was being extracted from the registry data. Author response 6. This has been explained in 2.2.4. Reviewer comment 7. In the data extraction section, it states that ‘data will be retrieved from previous COMET systematic reviews’ but it is not clear how this information will be used in the protocol. Author response 7. Previous COMET systematic reviews, and ongoing inclusion of published COS by COMET, will be used for details of published COS relevant to this work. Data extraction will include the intended use of recommendations, disease category, disease name, population characteristics (age, sex), interventions, geographical locations of COS developers, geographical locations of COS participants will be extracted, and whether patients participated. This has been explained in 2.1.4. Reviewer comment 8. We have suggested a few minor wording amendments to improve readability: Background Suggest amend to: “There are some benefits to using COS in clinical trials, which include improving the consistency of outcome reporting, increasing the relevance of outcomes measured to decision-makers, and helping to identify potential selective outcome reporting bias.” Methods Confusing typo in survey section says ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who will conduct a clinical trial’ – should this be ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who have conducted a clinical trial’? Author response 8. We have made these changes in the manuscript. Reviewer comment 9. In the survey, there is a question about whether the respondent is a working in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Integrative Medicine or Western Medicine. Integrative Medicine is not mentioned anywhere in the protocol. Author response 9. The text has been amended. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Wen Z. Reviewer Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.152547.r223685 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v1#referee-response-223685 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Nov 2023 Zehuai Wen , Key Unit of Methodology in Clinical Research, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.152547.r223685 This is an exciting study with expected results. As far as I know, this may be the first survey in this field in China. The protocol was clearly reported in terms of the rationale, purpose, and procedure of the study. ... Continue reading READ ALL This is an exciting study with expected results. As far as I know, this may be the first survey in this field in China. The protocol was clearly reported in terms of the rationale, purpose, and procedure of the study. In addition to the literature review, the study also designed a survey for trial investigators, which is a commendable survey to understand further the current situation of knowledge and application of COS among clinical trial investigators in China, which is also conducive to the development and promotion of COS. From the structured questions in the survey, it should be possible to analyze why the investigators used or did not use COS, so it is recommended to consider this analysis in the statistical analysis section. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Evidence-based medicine research in traditional medicine; clinical epidemiology; COS development I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Wen Z. Reviewer Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.152547.r223685 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v1#referee-response-223685 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Apr 2024 Ruijin Qiu , University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK 12 Apr 2024 Author Response Thank you for your comments and useful feedback. From the structured questions in the survey, trialists who searched COS before registration will be asked about the reason why they did ... Continue reading Thank you for your comments and useful feedback. From the structured questions in the survey, trialists who searched COS before registration will be asked about the reason why they did not use the COS; their responses will be analyzed by content analysis. Thank you for your comments and useful feedback. From the structured questions in the survey, trialists who searched COS before registration will be asked about the reason why they did not use the COS; their responses will be analyzed by content analysis. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Apr 2024 Ruijin Qiu , University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK 12 Apr 2024 Author Response Thank you for your comments and useful feedback. From the structured questions in the survey, trialists who searched COS before registration will be asked about the reason why they did ... Continue reading Thank you for your comments and useful feedback. From the structured questions in the survey, trialists who searched COS before registration will be asked about the reason why they did not use the COS; their responses will be analyzed by content analysis. Thank you for your comments and useful feedback. From the structured questions in the survey, trialists who searched COS before registration will be asked about the reason why they did not use the COS; their responses will be analyzed by content analysis. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 23 Aug 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 3 (revision) 17 Jul 24 Version 2 (revision) 28 Mar 24 read Version 1 23 Aug 23 read read Zehuai Wen , Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China Kim Thomas , University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Emma Campbell , University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Thomas K et al. This is an open access peer review report 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. 05 Apr 2024 | for Version 2 Kim Thomas , Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Emma Campbell , Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 0 Views copyright © 2024 Thomas K et al. This is an open access peer review report 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. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions No further comments to make. Competing Interests KT is a member of the Executive Group for The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema and sits on the Methods Committee for the C3 initiative. I confirm that this potential conflict of interest did not affect my ability to write an objective and unbiased review of the article. Reviewer Expertise Applied health research, core outcome sets, development and validation of outcome instruments We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Thomas K and Campbell E. Peer Review Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164025.r260341) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v2#referee-response-260341 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Thomas K et al. This is an open access peer review report 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. 28 Feb 2024 | for Version 1 Kim Thomas , Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Emma Campbell , Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 0 Views copyright © 2024 Thomas K et al. This is an open access peer review report 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. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol Thank you for asking for a review of this interesting study protocol. Overall, the protocol is well written. The authors state that the two aims of this protocol are to: Determine whether ongoing and completed COS are relevant to the disease burden in China. Find out whether clinical trialists in China use published COS in their trials. They have identified the top 25 disease categories in China, based on the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). They plan to search the COMET database to find ongoing and published Core Outcome Sets (COS) that have been added since 2012, that are relevant to these 25 disease categories. They will also search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry to identify clinical trials (registered 2021-2022) in the 25 disease categories that list outcomes that match the outcomes in the disease-specific COS. This will give an indication of whether ongoing and completed COS are relevant to the disease burden in China. For further analysis, individual clinical trials will be analysed to see whether an appropriate COS exists for the disease in question. Each trial also has to meet the inclusion criteria of there being at least 40 clinical trials that match to each specific COS. Lead investigators of the selected clinical trials will then be surveyed, and some will be interviewed, on their views of COS. This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of disease in China to published COS. Exploring uptake of COS in trials registered on the Chinese clinical trials registry. Mixed methods study to establish awareness, barriers and facilitators to COS uptake (including both an initial survey and subsequent interview study). It might have been helpful to describe these three aspects separately, with specific aims, objectives and methods for each. Not all of the studies aims and objectives are clearly articulated in the existing two aims. The authors suggest that specific COS may be required to evaluate interventions testing Chinese Medicine and that uptake of COS developed in China might be higher than uptake of COS developed internationally. I am a little worried that such a stance goes against the very essence of what COS initiatives are trying to do. Namely to promote a single unified approach to evaluating outcomes in a given condition throughout the world. I am not yet convinced that a COS specific to Chinese Medicine is helpful or required. The approach of focussing on the top 25 diseases by burden of disease in China is interesting and should help to focus the study, although this still represents a lot of work. It is not clear why only COS published since 2012 are included. If a disease category has a gold-standard COS that was published pre-2012 (e.g the work of the OMERACT group), this protocol would count the disease category as having no COS, which seems a shame. It is proposed that the COS identified through a search of the COMET database will be evaluated for quality. Whilst this is a laudable ambition, there was very little detail provided as to exactly how this would be done and what the cut-off for meeting the quality standard might be. Rather than excluding COS based on their quality status, I wonder if it would be more useful to include all identified COS, and to report the quality ratings descriptively. At least this information would then be in the public domain and could avoid wasted effort of people repeating these quality assessments. One of the specified inclusion criteria for study 2 (uptake of COS in clinical trials and studies) required that there be “not less than 40 trials for a given condition”. It might be helpful to add an explanation as to why this was included. If trials are only included in cases where at least 40 of them match a specific COS, the authors are not capturing up to 39 trials per disease category. Similarly, in the section describing data extraction, it might be helpful to signpost to the fact that study 3 will require the contact details of clinical trialist who have been identified in study 2. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering why this information was being extracted from the registry data. In the data extraction section, it states that ‘data will be retrieved from previous COMET systematic reviews’ but it is not clear how this information will be used in the protocol. We have suggested a few minor wording amendments to improve readability: Background Suggest amend to: “There are some benefits to using COS in clinical trials, which include improving the consistency of outcome reporting, increasing the relevance of outcomes measured to decision-makers, and helping to identify potential selective outcome reporting bias.” Methods Confusing typo in survey section says ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who will conduct a clinical trial’ – should this be ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who have conducted a clinical trial’? In the survey, there is a question about whether the respondent is a working in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Integrative Medicine or Western Medicine. Integrative Medicine is not mentioned anywhere in the protocol. We wish the authors good luck with conducting this study and look forward to reading the results. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests KT is a member of the Executive Group for The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema and sits on the Methods Committee for the C3 initiative.I confirm that this potential conflict of interest did not affect my ability to write an objective and unbiased review of the article. Reviewer Expertise Applied health research, core outcome sets, development and validation of outcome instruments We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Apr 2024 Ruijin Qiu, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Reviewer comment 1 . This is an ambitious study that will provide an interesting insight into COS uptake in China. It is actually three studies in one: Mapping of burden of disease in China to published COS. Exploring uptake of COS in trials registered on the Chinese clinical trials registry. Mixed methods study to establish awareness, barriers and facilitators to COS uptake (including both an initial survey and subsequent interview study). It might have been helpful to describe these three aspects separately, with specific aims, objectives and methods for each. Not all of the studies aims and objectives are clearly articulated in the existing two aims. Author response 1. The three aims were listed in the final paragraph of the Background section, and the methods for each are described in separate subsections of the Methods section. Reviewer comment 2 . The authors suggest that specific COS may be required to evaluate interventions testing Chinese Medicine and that uptake of COS developed in China might be higher than uptake of COS developed internationally. I am a little worried that such a stance goes against the very essence of what COS initiatives are trying to do. Namely to promote a single unified approach to evaluating outcomes in a given condition throughout the world. I am not yet convinced that a COS specific to Chinese Medicine is helpful or required. Author response 2. We did not intend to suggest that, and have included the rationale for including a COS developed by Chinese researchers in the protocol. Reviewer comment 3 . The approach of focussing on the top 25 diseases by burden of disease in China is interesting and should help to focus the study, although this still represents a lot of work. It is not clear why only COS published since 2012 are included. If a disease category has a gold-standard COS that was published pre-2012 (e.g the work of the OMERACT group), this protocol would count the disease category as having no COS, which seems a shame. Author response 3. All COS will be analyzed in the mapping of burden of disease in China to COS. A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. It has been clarified in the methods. Reviewer comment 4. It is proposed that the COS identified through a search of the COMET database will be evaluated for quality. Whilst this is a laudable ambition, there was very little detail provided as to exactly how this would be done and what the cut-off for meeting the quality standard might be. Rather than excluding COS based on their quality status, I wonder if it would be more useful to include all identified COS, and to report the quality ratings descriptively. At least this information would then be in the public domain and could avoid wasted effort of people repeating these quality assessments. Author response 4. We have clarified that we will use patient participation in COS development as a marker of methodological quality, with the rationale provided. Reviewer comment 5. One of the specified inclusion criteria for study 2 (uptake of COS in clinical trials and studies) required that there be “not less than 40 trials for a given condition”. It might be helpful to add an explanation as to why this was included. If trials are only included in cases where at least 40 of them match a specific COS, the authors are not capturing up to 39 trials per disease category. Author response 5. The online survey will be sent to trialists who registered clinical trials which are relevant to a specific COS. We anticipate a 50% non-response rate, thus if the number of trials is too small, it will be difficult to obtain a reasonable spread of perspectives from trialists about the use of the relevant COS. It was felt that responses from 20 trialists would be helpful based on a typical number of participants involved in qualitative research, thus requiring an anticipated 40 trials This rationale has been explained in the methods (2.2.3). Reviewer comment 6. Similarly, in the section describing data extraction, it might be helpful to signpost to the fact that study 3 will require the contact details of clinical trialist who have been identified in study 2. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering why this information was being extracted from the registry data. Author response 6. This has been explained in 2.2.4. Reviewer comment 7. In the data extraction section, it states that ‘data will be retrieved from previous COMET systematic reviews’ but it is not clear how this information will be used in the protocol. Author response 7. Previous COMET systematic reviews, and ongoing inclusion of published COS by COMET, will be used for details of published COS relevant to this work. Data extraction will include the intended use of recommendations, disease category, disease name, population characteristics (age, sex), interventions, geographical locations of COS developers, geographical locations of COS participants will be extracted, and whether patients participated. This has been explained in 2.1.4. Reviewer comment 8. We have suggested a few minor wording amendments to improve readability: Background Suggest amend to: “There are some benefits to using COS in clinical trials, which include improving the consistency of outcome reporting, increasing the relevance of outcomes measured to decision-makers, and helping to identify potential selective outcome reporting bias.” Methods Confusing typo in survey section says ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who will conduct a clinical trial’ – should this be ‘A survey will be sent to clinical trialists who have conducted a clinical trial’? Author response 8. We have made these changes in the manuscript. Reviewer comment 9. In the survey, there is a question about whether the respondent is a working in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Integrative Medicine or Western Medicine. Integrative Medicine is not mentioned anywhere in the protocol. Author response 9. The text has been amended. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Thomas K and Campbell E. Peer Review Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.152547.r243145) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v1#referee-response-243145 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Wen Z. This is an open access peer review report 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. 30 Nov 2023 | for Version 1 Zehuai Wen , Key Unit of Methodology in Clinical Research, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China 0 Views copyright © 2023 Wen Z. This is an open access peer review report 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. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is an exciting study with expected results. As far as I know, this may be the first survey in this field in China. The protocol was clearly reported in terms of the rationale, purpose, and procedure of the study. In addition to the literature review, the study also designed a survey for trial investigators, which is a commendable survey to understand further the current situation of knowledge and application of COS among clinical trial investigators in China, which is also conducive to the development and promotion of COS. From the structured questions in the survey, it should be possible to analyze why the investigators used or did not use COS, so it is recommended to consider this analysis in the statistical analysis section. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Evidence-based medicine research in traditional medicine; clinical epidemiology; COS development I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Apr 2024 Ruijin Qiu, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Thank you for your comments and useful feedback. From the structured questions in the survey, trialists who searched COS before registration will be asked about the reason why they did not use the COS; their responses will be analyzed by content analysis. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Wen Z. Peer Review Report For: Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1030 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.152547.r223685) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v1#referee-response-223685 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Qiu R et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030", templates : { twitter : "Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a.... Qiu R et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1030/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/139282/169035") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "169035"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "243139": 0, "243137": 0, "243143": 0, "243141": 0, "223685": 22, "223684": 0, "243145": 16, "243127": 0, "200087": 0, "200086": 0, "200085": 0, "260341": 7, "200084": 0, "260340": 0, "243131": 0, "243129": 0, "304222": 0, "200088": 0, "304223": 0, "243135": 0, "243133": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "5055138a-e61f-46cf-a5a6-c4ebfe57e78a"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });