Overview
This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.
Key numbers
The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:
- Table 1 Recruitment and representation targets for the
- Healthcare ► Top five countries (75%): UK, and broad inclusion of cancer types, and efforts will be
- Patients ► Sex: women (50%) and men (50%). (Sheffield Hallam University, UK) will be invited.27
- settings (table 1). The study aims to recruit a minimum of Demographic variables are listed in the online supple-
- countries.44 Targets will also aim to include a broad range tical constraints, the same level of support cannot be
- Table 2 Scoring criteria for screening, assessment
- Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Delphi process. This 60% threshold is distinct from the
- Evaluation (GRADE) approach predefined consensus criterion (≥70% rating 7–9) used
- consistent with the Grading of Recommendations Assess- A purposive sample of at least 10% of participants
- steering committee and within the scope of the core set, ≥70% of meeting participants vote in favour. The final
- falls below 70%, the Delphi process will be terminated consistency, where applicable.49 Feasibility consider-
- rounds, stratified by stakeholder group.45 If clear consensus on a suitable measurement instru-
- outcomes rated critically important (7–9) by 60% or This will be followed by anonymous structured voting.
- Table 3 Consensus classification for screening, assessment and outcome domains and measurement instruments
- Consensus in Agreement that the measure/instrument should be ≥70% of participants rate the measure
- included in the core set. 7–9 (critically important), and <15% rate it
- Consensus out Agreement that the measure/instrument should not ≥70% of participants rate the measure
- Recommended inclusion* Strong support for a measurement instrument, ≥60% of participants rate the measure
- where consensus in was not reached. 7–9 (critically important), and <15% rate it
- A measurement instrument will be selected if ≥70% of Partial responses within a round will be included in the
- Based on the Delphi findings and, where required, pants must rate at least 80% of measures in a given round
- Practice: the Current Evidence. Curr Oncol Rep 2022;24:1569–77. 41 Edbrooke L, Granger CL, Francis JJ, et al. Rehabilitation outcomes
- Prehabilitation Trials-Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges? J Surg a core outcome set. BMJ Open Respir Res 2023;10:e001571.
Methods (brief)
- on the optimal sample size for core outcome set devel- collection of demographic data to support monitoring of
- with sample sizes in previous core outcome set develop-
- consistent with the Grading of Recommendations Assess- A purposive sample of at least 10% of participants
- Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands 4 Yoo M, Jang CW. Prehabilitation Research: A Bibliometric Analysis
- Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, 5 Fleurent-Grégoire C, Burgess N, McIsaac DI, et al. Towards a
Implications
This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.
Wiki pages this source may touch
Verification notes
- Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing
wiki/sources/pages before creation. - Full-PDF read:
pdftotext -layoutwas run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written. - Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
- Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
- HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.
Update history
The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.