Variation in outcome reporting in endometriosis trials: a systematic review

Non-menstrual pelvic symptoms and women's quality of life: a cross-sectional observational study

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis-related pain duration and burden are associated with poorer psychological well-being and health-related quality of life (HQoLife). This study aimed to compare the relative burdens of 4 different non-menstrual pelvic symptoms on HQoLife: Deep dyspareunia (DDyspareunia), non-menstrual pelvic pain (NMPelvicPain), non-menstrual dyschezia (NMDyschezia) and non-menstrual dysuria (NMDysuria).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This is a pre-planned cross-sectional interdisciplinary retrospective observational study. The sample consists of 369 consecutive patients referred for minimally invasive surgery at a private institution. DDyspareunia, NMPelvicPain, NMDyschezia and NMDysuria were assessed with a self-reported 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale (NRS). The Short Form 36 (SF36) and Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP30) full questionnaires were applied to assess HQoLife. Multiple linear regression models were used to compare the 4 explanatory variables (correlates), which were tested for 19 different HQoLife domains.

RESULTS

Multivariate exploratory analyses indicated that NMPelvicPain and NMDyschezia may be the non-menstrual pelvic symptoms that most impact the HQoLife of women with endometriosis, an association that was observed in practically all domains of both the SF36 and the EHP30 questionnaires. DDyspareunia was the most important symptom for the sexual intercourse EHP30 domain. Despite the biological plausibility and statistical significance found in virtually all models, their low explanatory power suggests the existence of additional major covariates (not contemplated in this study). Moreover, the presence of significant positive intercepts (P<0.001) implies that some HQoLife impairment is expected for any hypothetical woman with endometriosis, even if all 4 correlates' scores are equal to zero. Our findings support the hypothesis that the importance of bowel symptoms has been underestimated in endometriosis assessment whereas the burden of other potential covariates should not be neglected.

CONCLUSION

DDyspareunia was the most important non-menstrual pelvic symptoms for the EHP30Sex domain, but NMPelvic Pain and NMDyschezia were the most important for overall HQoLife.

Outcome Reporting in Studies Investigating Treatment for Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) is associated with significant maternal and foetal morbidity. However, the optimal treatment remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment and outcome reporting quality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We reviewed 1270 articles identified through searching PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar from 2014 to 2024 using the search terms 'caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy and caesarean scar pregnancy'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all study types evaluating any form of CSEP treatment, with a sample size of ≥ 50, where diagnosis was described, and the article was in English.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed studies and assessed outcome reporting and methodological quality. The relationship between outcome reporting quality and publication year and journal type was assessed with univariate and bivariate models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 108 studies, including 17 941 women, were included. 83% of all studies originated from China. Studies reported on 326 outcomes; blood loss (86%), need for additional intervention (77%) and time for serum hCG to normalise post treatment (69%) were the most common outcomes. A primary outcome was clearly defined in 11 (10%) studies. The median quality of outcome reporting was 3 (IQR 3-4). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality and publication year (p = 0.116) or journal type (p = 0.503).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that there is a wide variation in outcomes reported in studies on CSEP treatment. Development and implementation of a core outcome set by international stakeholders which includes patients is urgently needed to enable high-quality research that is both useful and relevant to patients.

Trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues of 1425 infertility trials published from 2012 to 2023: a systematic review

STUDY QUESTION

What are the trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in infertility published from 2012 to 2023?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Of the 1425 infertility RCTs, over two-thirds focused on IVF, nearly two-fifths did not use pregnancy or live birth as the primary outcome, a third lacked a primary outcome, a half were unregistered, and just over half were conducted in China (22%), Iran (20%), or Egypt (10%).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

RCTs are the main source of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. Knowledge about RCTs in infertility from the recent past will help to pinpoint research gaps and prioritize the future research agenda. Here, we aim to present a descriptive analysis of trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues in infertility trials published in the last decade.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This is a systematic review. We systematically searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central for RCTs in infertility from January 2012 to August 2023. RCTs involving subfertile women and women who reported pregnancy endpoints were eligible, while conference abstracts or secondary analyses were not. We did not limit our search based on the language of the articles.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The full articles were text-mined and manually extracted for the description of trials' characteristics (e.g. sample size, blinding method, types of intervention), the country where the patients were recruited, and methodological issues (trial registrations and specification of primary outcomes). We extracted funding statements from Dimensions, a literature database chosen for its comprehensive and robust metadata. Gross domestic product (GDP) data were obtained from the United Nations' official website. The accuracy of extracted data was validated in a random sample of 50 articles, and false positivity and false negativity were all at or below 8%. We used descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages to illustrate the overall and temporal trends.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Among 8757 records, we found 1425 eligible RCTs, with a median sample size of 140, and 33.3% had a sample size <100. Most (69.6%) of the trials focused on IVF, with the rest focusing on ovulation induction (12.4%), intrauterine insemination (10.6%), surgeries (4.8%), or other interventions (2.6%). Regarding the geographic distribution, China (n = 310), Iran (n = 284), and Egypt (n = 138) contributed to 51% of the RCTs, followed by Turkey (n = 82), India (n = 71), and the USA (n = 69); mainland Europe produced 343 trials. Ranked by publications of trials per trillion GDP, Greece had the most papers with 4.6, followed by Iraq at 3.9, and Iran at 2.5. Regarding trial registration, 47.8% of trials were unregistered, the proportion of studies that were unregistered halved from 70.0% in 2012 to 34.6% in 2022. Of all RCTs, 37.6% had primary outcomes unspecified; the proportion of trials specifying primary outcomes increased from 49.5% in 2012 to 61.4% in 2022. The proportion of trials which declared receiving no funding was 76.9%.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

We primarily used text mining for data extraction. Despite optimizing the algorithm to identify all outcome definitions and manually curating the extracted data, there were inaccuracies in data extraction; however, the false positivity and false negativity of data extraction were all at or below 8%. Also, we focused on trials reporting pregnancy outcomes, as these are of primary interest to patients and carry significant implications on clinical practice. However, we acknowledge that early-stage trials with only upstream endpoints also play an important role and should be considered when evaluating the full spectrum of infertility trials. Finally, we only included published RCTs and hence, our results cannot be extrapolated to unpublished RCTs.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The domination of RCTs on IVF calls for a reconsideration of other topics to be studied and a realignment of research priorities. The imbalanced geographic distribution of infertility trials raises questions about the generalizability of study results and equity in the distribution of healthcare resources. The prevalence of trials without registration or primary outcomes specified highlights the imperative to improve trial design and reporting quality. Encouragingly, the improving trial registrations suggest the enforcement of trial registrations from the journals is effective.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). W.T.L. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GTN2016729). W.L.L. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. Q.F. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from Merck. B.W.M. reports receiving consultancy fees, travel support, and research funding from Merck; consultancy fees from Organon and Norgine; and stock ownership in ObsEva. T.D.H and S.L. are employees of Merck. W.T.L., W.L.L., and J.C. report no conflicts of interest.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42024498624.

A systematic literature review on patient-reported outcome domains and measures in nonsurgical efficacy trials related to chronic pain associated with endometriosis: an urgent call to action

ABSTRACT

Endometriosis, a common cause for chronic pelvic pain, significantly affects quality of life, fertility, and overall productivity of those affected. Therapeutic options remain limited, and collating evidence on treatment efficacy is complicated. One reason could be the heterogeneity of assessed outcomes in nonsurgical clinical trials, impeding meaningful result comparisons. This systematic literature review examines outcome domains and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials. Through comprehensive search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL up until July 2022, we screened 1286 records, of which 191 were included in our analyses. Methodological quality (GRADE criteria), information about publication, patient population, and intervention were assessed, and domains as well as PROMs were extracted and analyzed. In accordance with IMMPACT domain framework, the domain pain was assessed in almost all studies (98.4%), followed by adverse events (73.8%). By contrast, assessment of physical functioning (29.8%), improvement and satisfaction (14.1%), and emotional functioning (6.8%) occurred less frequently. Studies of a better methodological quality tended to use more different domains. Nevertheless, combinations of more than 2 domains were rare, failing to comprehensively capture the bio-psycho-social aspects of endometriosis-associated pain. The PROMs used showed an even broader heterogeneity across all studies. Our findings underscore the large heterogeneity of assessed domains and PROMs in clinical pain-related endometriosis trials. This highlights the urgent need for a standardized approach to both, assessed domains and high-quality PROMs ideally realized through development and implementation of a core outcome set, encompassing the most pivotal domains and PROMs for both, stakeholders and patients.

The most impactful endometriosis symptom: An international, cross-sectional, two-round survey study

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable variation in the types of symptoms experienced by people living with endometriosis, and it is unclear which symptoms impact people the most. This study aimed to identify the specific symptoms that are "most impactful" to people living with the condition.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two sequential online surveys were conducted. Women aged over 18 years with a diagnosis of endometriosis were eligible to participate. Participants first provided a free-text list of all the endometriosis symptoms they experienced (Survey 1, Australian only). Responses were condensed into a shorter list by grouping symptom types and selecting the top 20 most common and most impactful. Survey 2 (international) participants reviewed the list and selected all that they had experienced in the last 3 months, nominated one as their single "most impactful symptom", and rated its impact on one of five randomized scale types.

RESULTS

Survey 1 and Survey 2 had 195 and 983 responses, respectively. The mean age of respondents was 30.8 ± 7.9 years. There were 275 separate symptom descriptions from Survey 1, which were condensed into 104 groups, of which 25 met criteria for inclusion in Survey 2. The most commonly experienced symptoms were abdominal pain (93% of respondents), bloating (92%), and fatigue (90%), and the symptoms nominated as causing the most impact were pelvic pain (20%), abdominal pain (15%), and cramps (7%). Nearly everyone (99.7%) in Survey 2 reported experiencing at least one pain symptom. The symptoms that generated the highest impact scores were infertility (99.8/100), irregular menstrual cycles (95.3/100), and constipation (92/100). The average impact score was 87.5/100.

CONCLUSIONS

There was substantial variation in the symptom selected as causing the most impact, and the level of impact was high. A focus on measuring the "most impactful symptom" in future research may enable us to better capture and measure the true symptom experience.

An overview and comprehensive analysis of interdisciplinary clinical research in endometriosis based on trial registry

Endometriosis is a chronic multisystem disease associated with immunological, genetic, hormonal, psychological, and neuroscientific factors, leading to a significant socioeconomic impact worldwide. Though multidisciplinary management is the ideal approach, there remains a scarcity of published interdisciplinary clinical trials at present. Here, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics and issues of interdisciplinary trials on endometriosis based on the clinical registration database ClinicalTrials.gov. Among all 387 endometriosis trials, 30% (116) were identified as interdisciplinary, mostly conducted in Europe and North America, and fully funded by non-industrial sources. We documented growth in both patient-centered multidisciplinary comprehensive management and collaboration between fundamental biomedical science and applied medicine. However, compared to traditional obstetric-gynecological trials, interdisciplinary studies exhibited negative characteristics such as less likely to be randomized and less likely to report results. Our study provides insights for future trial investigators and may contribute to fostering greater collaboration in medical research.

Interventions, outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in stillbirth care research: A systematic review to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set could address inconsistent outcome reporting and improve evidence for stillbirth care research, which have been identified as an important research priority.

OBJECTIVES

To identify outcomes and outcome measurement instruments reported by studies evaluating interventions after the diagnosis of a stillbirth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Amed, BNI, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP from 1998 to August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised comparative or non-comparative studies reporting a stillbirth care intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Interventions, outcomes reported, definitions and outcome measurement tools were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty randomised and 200 non-randomised studies were included. Fifty-eight different interventions were reported, labour and birth care (52 studies), hospital bereavement care (28 studies), clinical investigations (116 studies), care in a multiple pregnancy (2 studies), psychosocial support (28 studies) and care in a subsequent pregnancy (14 studies). A total of 391 unique outcomes were reported and organised into 14 outcome domains: labour and birth; postpartum; delivery of care; investigations; multiple pregnancy; mental health; emotional functioning; grief and bereavement; social functioning; relationship; whole person; subsequent pregnancy; subsequent children and siblings and economic. A total of 242 outcome measurement instruments were used, with 0-22 tools per outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in outcome reporting, outcome definition and measurement tools in care after stillbirth exists. Considerable research gaps on specific intervention types in stillbirth care were identified. A core outcome set is needed to standardise outcome collection and reporting for stillbirth care research.

Outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the pharmacological management of idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB) in women; a systematic review for the development of core outcome sets (COS)

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Evidence on OAB management remains suboptimal and methodological limitations in randomized control trials (RCTs) affect their comparability. High quality meta-analyses are lacking. This study aimed to compare selection and reporting of outcomes and outcome measures across RCTs as well as evaluate methodological quality and outcome reporting quality as a first stage in the process of developing core outcome sets (COS).

METHODS

RCTs were searched using Pubmed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, ICTRP and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to January 2020, in English language, on adult women. Pharmacological management, interventions, sample size, journal type and commercial funding were documented. Methodological and outcome reporting quality were evaluated using JADAD and MOMENT scores.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials (18,316 women) were included. Sixty-nine outcomes were reported, using 62 outcome measures. The most commonly reported outcome domains were efficacy (86.8%), safety (73.7%) and QoL (60.5%). The most commonly reported outcomes in each domain were urgency urinary incontinence episodes (UUI) (52.6%), antimuscarinic side effects (76.3%) and change in validated questionnaire scores (36.8%). A statistically significant correlation was found between JADAD and MOMENT (Spearman's rho = 0.548, p < 0.05) scores. This indicates that higher methodological quality is associated with higher outcome reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Development of COS and core outcome measure sets will address variations and lead to higher quality evidence. We recommend the most commonly reported outcomes in each domain, as interim COS. For efficacy we recommend: UUI episodes, urgency and nocturia episodes; for safety: antimuscarinic adverse events, other adverse events and discontinuation rates; for QoL: OAB-q, PPBC and IIQ scores.

Outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male infertility: a systematic review

STUDY QUESTION

What are the primary outcomes and outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating potential treatments for male infertility in the last 10 years?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Outcome reporting across male infertility trials is heterogeneous with numerous definitions and measures used to define similar outcomes.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

No core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed. Male infertility trials are unique in that they have potentially three participants, a man, a female partner and their offspring and this will likely lead to significant variation in outcome reporting in randomized trials.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A systematic review of RCTs mapping outcomes and outcome measures evaluating potential treatments for men with infertility registered in the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 2010 and July 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Abstract screening and study selection was undertaken in duplicate using a review protocol that was developed prior to commencing the review. No risk of bias assessment was undertaken as this review aims to report on outcome reporting only.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

One hundred and seventy-five RCTs were identified, and given the large number of studies we limited our review to the 100 largest trials. Seventy-nine different treatments were reported across the 100 largest RCTs including vitamin and dietary supplements (18 trials), surgical treatments (18 trials) and sperm selection techniques (22 trials). When considering the largest 100 trials (range: 80-2772 participants), 36 primary and 89 secondary outcomes were reported. Forty-seven trials reported a primary outcome and 36 trials clearly defined their primary outcome. Pregnancy outcomes were inconsistently reported and included pregnancy rate (51 trials), pregnancy loss including miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth (9 trials) and live birth (13 trials). Trials consistently reporting the same outcome frequently used different definitions. For example, semen quality was reported by 75 trials and was defined in 7 different ways, including; the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 criteria (32 trials), WHO 1999 criteria (18 trials), WHO 1992 criteria (3 trials), WHO 1999 and 1992 criteria (1 trial) and the Kruger strict morphology criteria (1 trial).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

We only evaluated the 100 largest trials published in the last 10 years and did not report outcomes on the remaining 75. An outcome was included as a primary outcome only if clearly stated in the manuscript and we did not contact authors to clarify this. As our review mapped outcomes and outcome measures, we did not undertake an integrity assessment of the trials included in our review.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Most randomized trials evaluating treatments for male infertility report different outcomes. Only half of the RCTs reported pregnancy rate and even fewer reported live birth; furthermore, the definitions of these outcomes varies across trials. Developing, disseminating and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for male infertility research could help to improve outcome selection, collection and reporting.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

A.P.-chairman of external scientific advisory committee of Cryos International Denmark ApS, member of the scientific advisory board for Cytoswim LDT and ExSeed Health. Guest lecture at the 'Insights for Fertility Conference', funded by MERK SERONO Limited. M.v.W.-holds a ZON-MW research grant. No external funding was obtained for this study.

Efficacy of excision versus ablation for improving endometriosis related pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Surgical treatment of superficial peritoneal endometriosis includes excision or ablation. Controversy exists about which method is better for providing pain relief. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of excision versus ablation for improving the most frequently encountered endometriosis pain symptoms: dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, non-cyclic pelvic pain, and dyschezia.

Methods:

A search from inception to May 2020 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. RCTs comparing excision versus ablation for peritoneal endometriosis were included if they assessed dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and pelvic pain/non-menstrual pain. Exclusion criteria included extra-peritoneal endometriosis or endometriomas, and non-English publications. Publications were assessed for risk of bias and quality of evidence using Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) and GradePro.

Results:

Of the 2025 records identified initially, four met inclusion criteria. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 24 to 133 participants. The excision and ablation groups included 204 participants each. There was no difference after excision or ablation for dysmenorrhea when comparing the mean change in pain scores from baseline to 12 months after surgery (−0.31, 95% CI −1.66, 1.04, p = 0.65), dyspareunia (−0.24, 95% CI −1.78, 1.30, p = 0.76), dyschezia (−0.72, 95% CI −1.94, 0.50, p = 0.25), or non-cyclic pain (−0.78, 95% CI −2.47, 0.91, p = 0.37).

Conclusions:

We found low to moderate quality evidence suggesting that neither excision nor ablation is superior in reduction of endometriosis-related pain up to 12 months after surgery.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for stillbirth care research (iCHOOSE Study)

INTRODUCTION

Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed specialty journals, shared at national and international conferences and promoted through parent organisations and charities.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018087748.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for symptomatic endometriosis following surgery

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a condition characterised by the presence of ectopic deposits of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus, usually in the pelvis. The impact of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain is uncertain and a significant proportion of women will require further surgery. Therefore, adjuvant medical therapies following surgery, such as the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD), have been considered to reduce recurrence of symptoms.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of post-operative LNG-IUD in women with symptomatic endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2021: The Specialised Register of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, CENTRAL (which now includes records from two trial registries), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS and Epistemonikos. We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, abstracts of scientific meetings and included studies. We contacted experts in the field for information about any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing women undergoing surgical treatment of endometriosis with uterine preservation who were assigned to LNG-IUD insertion, versus control conditions including expectant management, post-operative insertion of placebo (inert intrauterine device), or other medical treatment such as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI using the inverse variance fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included, with a total of 157 women. Two studies are ongoing. The GRADE certainty of evidence was very low to low. The certainty of evidence was graded down primarily for serious risk of bias and imprecision. LNG-IUD versus expectant management Overall pain: No studies reported on the primary outcome of overall pain. Dysmenorrhoea: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves dysmenorrhoea at 12 months. Data on this outcome were reported on by two RCTs; meta-analysis was not possible (RCT 1: delta of median visual analogue scale (VAS) 81 versus 50, P = 0.006, n = 55; RCT 2: fall in VAS by 50 (35 to 65) versus 30 (25 to 40), P = 0.021, n = 40; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves quality of life at 12 months. One trial demonstrated a change in total quality of life score with postoperative LNG-IUD from baseline (mean 61.2 (standard deviation (SD) 14.8) to 12 months (mean 70.3 (SD 16.2) compared to expectant management (baseline 55.1 (SD 17.0) to 57.0 (SD 33.2) at 12 months) (n = 55, P = 0.014, very low-certainty evidence). Patient satisfaction: Two studies found higher rates of satisfaction with LNG-IUD compared to expectant management; however, combining the studies in meta-analysis was not possible (n = 95, very low-certainty evidence). One study found 75% (15/20) of those given post-operative LNG-IUD were "satisfied" or "very satisfied", compared to 50% (10/20) of those in the expectant management group (RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.90-2.49, 1 RCT, n=40, very low-certainty evidence). The second study found that fewer were "very satisfied" in the expectant management group when compared to LNG, but there were no data to include in a meta-analysis.  Adverse events: One study found a significantly higher proportion of women reporting melasma (n = 55, P = 0.015, very low-certainty evidence) and bloating (n = 55, P = 0.021, very low-certainty evidence) following post-operative LNG-IUD. There were no differences in other reported adverse events, such as weight gain, acne, and headaches.  LNG-IUD versus GnRH-a Overall pain: No studies reported on the primary outcome of overall pain. Chronic pelvic pain: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves chronic pelvic pain at 12 months when compared to GnRH-a (VAS pain scale) (MD -2.0, 95% CI -20.2 to 16.2, 1 RCT, n = 40, very low-certainty evidence). Dysmenorrhoea: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves dysmenorrhoea at six months when compared to GnRH-a (measured as a reduction in VAS pain score) (MD 1.70, 95%.CI -0.14 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 18, very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events: One study suggested that vasomotor symptoms were the most common adverse events reported with patients receiving GnRH-a, and irregular bleeding in those receiving LNG-IUD (n = 40, very low-certainty evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative LNG-IUD is widely used to reduce endometriosis-related pain and to improve operative outcomes. This review demonstrates that there is no high-quality evidence to support this practice. This review highlights the need for further studies with large sample sizes to assess the effectiveness of post-operative adjuvant hormonal IUD on the core endometriosis outcomes (overall pain, most troublesome symptom, and quality of life).

Outcome measures used in clinical research evaluating prehospital blood component transfusion in traumatically injured bleeding patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Trial outcomes should be relevant to all stakeholders and allow assessment of interventions' efficacy and safety at appropriate timeframes. There is no consensus regarding outcome measures in the growing field of prehospital trauma transfusion research. Harmonization of future clinical outcome reporting is key to facilitate interstudy comparisons and generate cohesive, robust evidence to guide practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcome measures reported in prehospital trauma transfusion trials.

METHODS

Data Sources, Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and InterventionsWe conducted a scoping systematic review to identify the type, number, and definitions of outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective observational cohort studies investigating prehospital blood component transfusion in adult and pediatric patients with traumatic hemorrhage. Electronic database searching of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, OVID, clinical trials.gov, and the Transfusion Evidence Library was completed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Meta-analyses guidelines.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsTwo review authors independently extracted outcome data. Unique lists of salutogenic (patient-reported health and wellbeing outcomes) and nonsalutogenic focused outcomes were established.

RESULTS

A total of 3,471 records were identified. Thirty-four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 4 military (n = 1,566 patients) and 30 civilian (n = 14,398 patients), all between 2000 and 2020. Two hundred twelve individual non-patient-reported outcomes were identified, which collapsed into 20 outcome domains with varied definitions and timings. All primary outcomes measured effectiveness, rather than safety or complications. Sixty-nine percent reported mortality, with 11 different definitions. No salutogenic outcomes were reported.

CONCLUSION

There is heterogeneity in outcome reporting and definitions, an absence of patient-reported outcome, and an emphasis on clinical effectiveness rather than safety or adverse events in prehospital trauma transfusion trials. We recommend stakeholder consultation and a Delphi process to develop a clearly defined minimum core outcome set for prehospital trauma transfusion trials.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Scoping systematic review, level III.

Clinimetric Properties of Self-reported Disability Scales for Whiplash: A Systematic Review for the Whiplash Core Outcome Set (CATWAD)

OBJECTIVES

A core outcomes set (COS) for whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) has been proposed to improve consistency of outcome reporting in clinical trials. Patient-reported disability was one outcome of interest within this COS. The aim of this review was to identify the most suitable tools for measuring self-reported disability in WAD based on clinimetric performance.

METHODS

Database searches took place in 2 stages. The first identified outcome measures used to assess self-reported disability in WAD, and the second identified studies assessing the clinimetric properties of these outcome measures in WAD. Data on the study, population and outcome measure characteristics were extracted, along with clinimetric data. Quality and clinimetric performance were assessed in accordance with the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).

RESULTS

Of 19,663 records identified in stage 1 searches, 32 were retained following stage 2 searches and screening. Both the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire and Neck Disability Index performed well in reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.84 to 0.98), construct validity (74% to 82% of hypotheses accepted), and responsiveness (majority of correlations in accordance with hypotheses). Both received Category B recommendations due to a lack of evidence for content validity.

DISCUSSION

This review identified the Neck Disability Index and Whiplash Disability Questionnaire as the most appropriate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing self-reported disability in WAD based on moderate to high-quality evidence for sufficient reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. However, the content validity of these PROMs has yet to be established in WAD, and until this is undertaken, it is not possible to recommend 1 PROM over the other for inclusion in the WAD COS.

A protocol for developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set for adenomyosis research

Background

Adenomyosis is a common benign gynaecological condition that has been associated with heavy and/or painful periods, subfertility and poor obstetric outcomes including miscarriage and preterm delivery. Studies evaluating treatments for adenomyosis have reported a wide range of outcomes and outcome measures. This variation in outcomes and outcome measures prevents effective data synthesis, thereby hampering the ability of meta-analyses to draw useful conclusions and inform clinical practice.

Objectives

Our aim is to develop a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all future studies that investigate any uterus-sparing intervention for treating uterine adenomyosis. Wide adoption of 'core outcomes' into research on adenomyosis would reduce the heterogeneity of studies and make data synthesis easier. This will ultimately lead to comparable, prioritised, and patient-centred conclusions from meta-analyses and guidelines.

Materials and Methods

Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature will form a long list, agreed by an international steering group representing key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, researchers, and public research partners. Through a modified Delphi process, key stakeholders will score outcomes from the agreed long list on a nine-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (not important) to 9 (critical). Following the Delphi process, the refined outcome set will be finalised by the steering group. Finally, the steering group will develop recommendations for high-quality measures for each outcome. The study was prospectively registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative; number 1649.

Conclusion

The implementation of the core outcome set for adenomyosis in future trials will enhance the availability of comparable data to facilitate more patient-centred evidence-based care.

What is new?

The core outcome set will facilitate the generation of clinically important and patient centred outcomes for studies evaluating treatments for adenomyosis.

Choice of primary and secondary outcomes in randomised controlled trials evaluating treatment for uterine fibroids: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets aim to reduce research heterogeneity and standardise reporting, allowing meaningful comparisons between studies.

OBJECTIVES

To report on outcomes used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating uterine fibroid treatments, towards the development of a core outcome set for fibroid research.

SELECTION STRATEGY

Database search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL (inception to July 2021) for all English-language RCTs involving surgical or radiological fibroid treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A total of 1885 texts were screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently according to PRISMA methodology. JADAD and Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) scores were used to assess methodological and outcome reporting quality of studies, respectively. Outcomes were mapped to nine domains. Non-parametric tests for correlation and to compare group medians were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 23 primary outcomes (23 outcome measures) and 173 secondary outcomes (95 outcome measures) reported in 60 RCTs (5699 participants). The domains with highest frequency of primary outcomes reported were bleeding and quality of life (QoL). The most frequent primary outcomes were postoperative pain, QoL and menstrual bleeding. No primary outcomes were mapped to fertility domains. Median MOMENT outcome score was 5 (interquartile range 3). There was correlation between MOMENT outcome score and JADAD scores (r = 0.491, P = 0.0001), publishing journal impact factor (r = 0.419, P = 0.008) and publication year (r = 0.332, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variation in the outcomes reported in fibroid RCTs. There is a need for a core outcome set for fibroid research, to allow improved understanding regarding the effects of different treatments.

A systematic review of outcome reporting and outcome measures in studies investigating uterine-sparing treatment for adenomyosis

STUDY QUESTION

Which outcomes and outcome measures are reported in interventional trials evaluating the treatment of adenomyosis?

SUMMARY ANSWER

We identified 38 studies, reporting on 203 outcomes using 133 outcome measures.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Heterogeneity in outcome evaluation and reporting has been demonstrated for several gynaecological conditions and in fertility studies. In adenomyosis, previous systematic reviews have failed to perform a quantitative analysis for central outcomes, due to variations in outcome reporting and measuring.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A systematic search of Embase, Medline and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed with a timeframe from 1950 until February 2021, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Studies reporting on any uterus-sparing intervention to treat adenomyosis, both prospective and retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were a clear definition of diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis and the modality used to make the diagnosis, a clear description of the intervention, a follow-up time of ≥6 months, a study population of n ≥ 20, a follow-up rate of at least 80%, and English language. The population included premenopausal women with adenomyosis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We included 38 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 32 cohort studies), including 5175 participants with adenomyosis. The studies described 10 interventions and reported on 203 outcomes, including 43 classified as harms, in 29 predefined domains. Dysmenorrhoea (reported in 82%), heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) (in 79%) and uterine volume (in 71%) were the most common outcomes. Fourteen different outcome measures were used for dysmenorrhoea and 17 for HMB. Quality of life was reported in 9 (24%) studies, patient satisfaction with treatment in 1 (3%). A clear primary outcome was stated in only 18%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This review includes studies with a high risk of bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Shortcomings in the definition and choice of outcomes and outcome measures limit the value of the conducted research. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) for interventional studies in adenomyosis could improve research quality. This review suggests a lack of patient-centred research in adenomyosis and people with adenomyosis should be involved in the development and implementation of the COS.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No funds specifically for this work were received. T.T. receives fees from General Electrics for lectures on ultrasound independently of this project.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020177466) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative (registration number 1649).

Outcome reporting in trials on conservative interventions for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review for the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Significant risk of bias and limitations in outcome selections in trials evaluating conservative treatments for the management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) have been highlighted and preclude comparability of outcomes, synthesis of primary studies and high quality evidence.

OBJECTIVES

As systematic review of the reported outcomes is the first step in the process of development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), we aimed to systematically review reporting of outcomes and outcome measures in Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) on conservative treatments for POP and develop an inventory of them for consideration as core outcome and outcome measures sets. We evaluated methodological quality, outcome reporting quality and publication characteristics and their associations among published RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of RCTs identified from the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE and MEDLINE (Pubmed). RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of conservative interventions for the management of POP were considered for inclusion. Outcomes and outcome measures were obtained from the RCTs and an inventory was created. Outcomes were grouped in domains and themes. Methodological quality, outcome reporting quality and publication characteristics were evaluated and statistically analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (3179 women) were included and reported 31 outcomes and 50 outcome measures. Reporting rates of the outcomes investigated ranged between 4% and 56%. The most commonly reported outcome domains were patient reported symptoms, stage of POP expressed as POP-Q stage, and quality of life. Univariate analysis demonstrated no significant correlations of methodological and outcome reporting parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to increase comparability of RCTs. Reporting standardized outcomes included in a COS for conservative interventions for POP will facilitate the comparability across RCTs. While the process of developing COS is in progress, we propose the interim use of the three most commonly reported outcomes in each domain: patient-reported outcomes (symptom distress including bowel and urinary symptoms, sexual function), stage of prolapse and quality of life parameters using validated questionnaires (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire/Health related quality of life (PFIQ-7/HRQOL) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire (POPIQ-7).

Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination to treat endometriosis

Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG), a vaccine intended to protect against tuberculosis disease, can elicit protection against heterologous infections, and even specific types of cancer. In this mini-review, we will address the possible use of BCG as a therapeutic for endometriosis, a syndrome of chronic pelvic pain due to ectopic growth of endometrial-type tissue outside of the uterine lining. These implanted tissues cycle synchronously with menses in pre-menopausal women, generating cellular debris inciting chronic inflammation and tissue scarring leading to pelvic pain and infertility. Further, these lesions may evolve into ovarian clear cell carcinoma. We hypothesize that implantation, survival and transformation of these implants is enabled by a form of immune suppression within the peritoneum, which may be overcome by BCG vaccination.

Standardizing abortion research outcomes (STAR): Results from an international consensus development study

Objective

To develop a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future abortion randomized controlled trials.

Study design

We extracted outcomes from quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews of abortion studies to assess using a modified Delphi method. Via email, we invited researchers, clinicians, patients, and healthcare organization representatives with expertise in abortion to rate the importance of the outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale. After 2 rounds, we used descriptive analyses to determine which outcomes met the predefined consensus criteria. We finalized the core outcome set during a series of consensus development meetings.

Results

We entered 42 outcomes, organized in 15 domains, into the Delphi survey. Two-hundred eighteen of 251 invitees (87%) provided responses (203 complete responses) for round 1 and 118 of 218 (42%) completed round2. Sixteen experts participated in the development meetings. The final outcome set includes 15 outcomes: 10 outcomes apply to all abortion trials (successful abortion, ongoing pregnancy, death, hemorrhage, uterine infection, hospitalization, surgical intervention, pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, and patients’ experience of abortion); 2 outcomes apply to only surgical abortion trials (uterine perforation and cervical injury), one applies only to medical abortion trials (uterine rupture); and 2 apply to trials evaluating abortions with anesthesia (over-sedation/respiratory depression and local anesthetic systemic toxicity).

Conclusion

Using robust consensus science methods we have developed a core outcome set for future abortion research.

Implications

Standardized outcomes in abortion research could decrease heterogeneity among trials and improve the quality of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. Researchers should select, collect, and report these core outcomes in future abortion trials. Journal editors should advocate for core outcome set reporting.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡

STUDY QUESTION

Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on item importance, scoring, and clinically meaningful differences for the Endometriosis Symptom Diary (ESD) and Endometriosis Impact Scale (EIS)

Background

The Endometriosis Symptom Diary (ESD) and Endometriosis Impact Scale (EIS) are patient-reported outcome measures developed to evaluate efficacy in clinical trials and clinical practice. The ESD is a daily electronic diary assessing symptom severity; the EIS is a weekly electronic diary assessing symptom impact. This study explored the importance of symptoms (ESD items) and impacts (EIS domains), perspectives on scoring algorithms, and clinically important difference (CID) thresholds to inform clinical trial score interpretation.

Methods

Endometriosis patients in Germany (n = 8) and the US (n = 17), and expert clinicians (n = 4) in Germany, the US, Spain, and Finland participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews comprising structured tasks. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques.

Results

Quality and severity of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain varied considerably among patients; some experienced pelvic pain daily, others during menstrual bleeding (dysmenorrhea) only. Patients and clinicians ranked “worst pelvic pain” as the most meaningful pain concept assessed by the ESD, followed by constant and short-term pelvic pain. Preferences for summarizing daily pain scores over the 28-day menstrual cycle depended on individuals’ experience of pain: patients experiencing pain daily preferred scores summarizing data for all 28 days; patients primarily experiencing pain during selected days, and their treating clinicians preferred scores based on the most severe pain days. Initial CID exploration for the “worst pelvic pain” 0–10 numerical rating scale (0–10 NRS) revealed that, for most patients, a 2- or 3-point reduction was considered meaningful, depending on baseline severity. Patients and clinicians ranked “emotional well-being” and “limitations in physical activities” as the most important EIS domains.

Conclusions

This study informs the use of the ESD and EIS as clinically relevant measures of endometriosis symptoms and their impact. Findings from the ESD highlight the importance of individual-patient assessment of pain experience and identify “worst pelvic pain” as the most meaningful symptom assessed. Aggregating scores over the 28-day menstrual cycle may inform meaningful endpoints for clinical trials. Diverse EIS concepts (e.g. impact on emotional well-being and physical activities) are meaningful to patients and clinicians, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the impact on both to comprehensively assess treatment efficacy and decisions.

Trial registration

Not applicable. Qualitative, non-interventional study; registration not required.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION

Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia research: an international consensus development study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia.

DESIGN

Consensus development study.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

Two hundred and eight-one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated.

METHODS

Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique.

RESULTS

A long-list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre-eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in-depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. Forty-seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support.

CONCLUSIONS

The core outcome set for pre-eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

281 healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 women have developed #preeclampsia core outcomes @HOPEoutcomes @jamesmnduffy. [Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the order has been corrected.].

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

A systematic review on reported outcomes and outcome measures in female idiopathic chronic pelvic pain for the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set (COS) is required to address inconsistencies in outcome reporting in chronic pelvic pain (CPP) trials.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of reported outcomes and selected outcome measures in CPP trials by producing a comprehensive inventory to inform a COS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase and MEDLINE databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs assessing efficacy and safety of medical, surgical and psychological interventions for women with idiopathic CPP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent researchers extracted outcomes and outcome measures. Similar outcomes were grouped and classified into domains to produce a structured inventory.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four trials were identified including 136 reported outcomes and outcome measures. Rates of reporting outcomes varied (4-100%) and pelvic pain was the most frequently reported outcome (100%). All trials reported the pain domain; however, only half reported quality of life, clinical effectiveness and adverse events. No differences in outcome reporting were observed in five high-quality trials (21%). Univariate analysis demonstrated an association between quality of outcome reporting and methodological quality of studies (r_s  = 0.407, P = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

There is wide variation in reported outcomes and applied outcome measures in CPP trials. While a COS is being developed and implemented, we propose the interim use of commonly reported outcomes in each domain: pain (pelvic pain, dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea), life impact (quality of life, emotional functioning, physical functioning), clinical effectiveness (efficacy, satisfaction, cost effectiveness, return to daily activities) and adverse events (surgical, perioperative observations, nonsurgical).

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

There is significant variation in outcome reporting in CPP trials. Our systematic review forms the basis for the development of a core outcome set.

Botulinum toxin injection for chronic pelvic pain: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Botulinum toxin has proven therapeutic effects in alleviating pain in several myofascial disorders, with an expanding potential in chronic pelvic pain. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin injection as an off-label treatment for female chronic pelvic pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Using PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, TRIP Database, EMBASE, Web of Science and gray literature were searched. Studies assessing the efficacy of botulinum toxin for chronic pelvic pain in adult females, with 10 or more women, published in English up to 13 January 2020, were included. All eligible studies were reviewed and data were extracted by two independent reviewers using a standardized form. Quality of evidence was graded using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials and the Ottawa-Newcastle scale for observational studies.

RESULTS

In all, 491 records were screened. Seventeen articles were included in the final review: 5 randomized controlled trials and 12 observational studies. The quality of evidence ranged from low to high. There was a large degree of heterogeneity in study designs, and thus a meta-analysis was not feasible. All observational studies concluded that botulinum toxin was an effective treatment for chronic pelvic pain, with the greatest change in visual analog scale from 8.69 at baseline to 3.07 at 24 months post-injection. However, only one of the five randomized controlled trials found statistical significant differences favoring botulinum toxin in the reporting of the EQ-5D (botulinum 0.78 [0.69-1.00], control 0.69 [0.25-0.81], P = .03) and frequency of intercourse (botulinum 1 [1-1.75], placebo 1 [0-1], P = .025). The most common adverse effect was transient localized pain at injection site (6%-88%). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Although observational studies were encouraging, there is insufficient high quality evidence to recommend botulinum toxin injection for chronic pelvic pain. However, it appears to be safe to use. Future studies of higher quality in its treatment efficacy are indicated.

Standardising definitions for the pre-eclampsia core outcome set: A consensus development study

OBJECTIVES

To develop consensus definitions for the core outcome set for pre-eclampsia.

STUDY DESIGN

Potential definitions for individual core outcomes were identified across four formal definition development initiatives, nine national and international guidelines, 12 Cochrane systematic reviews, and 79 randomised trials. Eighty-six definitions were entered into the consensus development meeting. Ten healthcare professionals and three researchers, including six participants who had experience of conducting research in low- and middle-income countries, participated in the consensus development process. The final core outcome set was approved by an international steering group.

RESULTS

Consensus definitions were developed for all core outcomes. When considering stroke, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, birth weight, and neonatal seizures, consensus definitions were developed specifically for low- and middle-income countries because of the limited availability of diagnostic interventions including computerised tomography, chest x-ray, laboratory tests, equipment, and electroencephalogram monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus on measurements for the pre-eclampsia core outcome set will help to ensure consistency across future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such standardization should make research evidence more accessible and facilitate the translation of research into clinical practice. Video abstract can be available at: www.dropbox.com/s/ftrgvrfu0u9glqd/6.%20Standardising%20definitions%20in%20teh%20pre-eclampsia%20core%20outcome%20set%3A%20a%20consensus%20development%20study.mp4?dl=0.

Surgical Outcomes in Patients With Endometriosis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Among women treated surgically for endometriosis-associated pain, comprehensive data are lacking on the proportions of patients who experience little or no symptom relief, develop recurrent symptoms, or require further surgical treatment for endometriosis. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of surgical procedures used to treat endometriosis-associated pain.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched on October 13, 2016. Articles referring to women undergoing surgery for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain were screened by two independent investigators. For each included treatment arm, data were extracted for the proportion of patients reporting partial or no improvement after surgery for endometriosis-associated pain, pain recurrence, or requirement for further surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies were included. Most studies did not report relevant outcomes to evaluate pain (71.1%) and recurrent surgery (68.4%). Of the women who underwent lesion excision, 11.8% reported no improvement in pain, and 22.6% underwent further surgery. Postoperative pain, recurrent pain, and adverse events were reported by 34.3%, 28.7%, and 14.8%, respectively, of patients who underwent excision or ablation of endometriosis combined with pelvic denervation and in 25.0%, 15.8%, and 8.1% of women who underwent lesion excision alone. Of the patients who were treated surgically for deep endometriosis affecting the bowel and/or bladder, 7.0% experienced recurrent symptoms, and 4.1% underwent further surgery.

CONCLUSION

This review supports the findings of previous studies and highlights the need for standardized reporting and more detailed follow-up after surgery for endometriosis-associated pain.

A core outcome set for future endometriosis research: an international consensus development study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set for endometriosis.

DESIGN

Consensus development study.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

One hundred and sixteen healthcare professionals, 31 researchers and 206 patient representatives.

METHODS

Modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique.

RESULTS

The final core outcome set includes three core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for pain and other symptoms associated with endometriosis: overall pain; improvement in the most troublesome symptom; and quality of life. In addition, eight core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for infertility associated with endometriosis were identified: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound; pregnancy loss, including ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy; live birth; time to pregnancy leading to live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital abnormalities. Two core outcomes applicable to all trials were also identified: adverse events and patient satisfaction with treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using robust consensus science methods, healthcare professionals, researchers and women with endometriosis have developed a core outcome set to standardise outcome selection, collection and reporting across future randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for endometriosis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @coreoutcomes for future #endometriosis research have been developed @jamesmnduffy.

Inconsistent outcome reporting in large neonatal trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Inconsistent outcome selection and reporting in clinical trials are important sources of research waste; it is not known how common this problem is in neonatal trials. Our objective was to determine whether large clinical trials involving infants receiving neonatal care report a consistent set of outcomes, how composite outcomes are used and whether parents or former patients were involved in outcome selection.

DESIGN

A literature search of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted; randomised trials published between 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2017 and involving at least 100 infants in each arm were included. Outcomes and outcome measures were extracted and categorised by physiological system; reported former patient and parent involvement in outcome selection was extracted.

RESULTS

Seventy-six trials involving 43 126 infants were identified; 216 different outcomes with 889 different outcome measures were reported. Outcome reporting covered all physiological systems but was variable between individual trials: only 67/76 (88%) of trials reported survival and 639 outcome measures were only reported in a single trial. Thirty-three composite outcomes were used in 41 trials. No trials reported former patient or parent involvement in outcome selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Inconsistent outcome reporting and a lack of parent and former patient involvement in outcome selection in neonatal clinical trials limits the ability of such trials to answer clinically meaningful questions. Developing and implementing a core outcome set for future neonatal trials, with input from all stakeholders, should address these issues.

Variation in menopausal vasomotor symptoms outcomes in clinical trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is substantial variation in how menopausal vasomotor symptoms are reported and measured among intervention studies. This has prevented meaningful comparisons between treatments and limited data synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To review systematically the outcome reporting and measures used to assess menopausal vasomotor symptoms from randomised controlled trials of treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with a primary outcome of menopausal vasomotor symptoms in women and a sample size of at least 20 women per study arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data about study characteristics, primary vasomotor-related outcomes and methods of measuring them.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 5591 studies, 214 of which were included. Forty-nine different primary reported outcomes were identified for vasomotor symptoms and 16 different tools had been used to measure these outcomes. The most commonly reported outcomes were frequency (97/214), severity (116/214), and intensity (28/114) of vasomotor symptoms or a composite of these outcomes (68/214). There was little consistency in how the frequency and severity/intensity of vasomotor symptoms were defined.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variation in how menopausal vasomotor symptoms have been reported and measured in treatment trials. Future studies should include standardised outcome measures which reflect the priorities of patients, clinicians, and researchers. This is most effectively achieved through the development of a Core Outcome Set. This systematic review is the first step towards development of a Core Outcome Set for menopausal vasomotor symptoms.

TWEETABLE SUMMARY

Menopausal hot flushes and night sweats have been reported in 49 different ways in clinical research. A core outcome set is urgently required.

Methodological decisions influence the identification of potential core outcomes in studies related to pre-eclampsia: an analysis informing the development of recommendations for future core outcome set developers

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the effect of different methodological decisions on the identification of potential core outcomes to inform the development of recommendations for future core coutcome set developers.

DESIGN

Mixed methods study.

SETTING

A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia was used as an exemplar.

SAMPLE

A long list of potential core outcomes was developed by undertaking a systematic review of pre-eclampsia trials and performing a thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews.

METHODS

Specific methods used to generate long lists of potential core outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Different methodological decisions had a substantial impact on the identification of potential core outcomes. Extracting outcomes from published pre-eclampsia trials was an effective way of identifying 48 maternal, eight fetal, 25 neonatal outcomes, and eight patient-reported outcomes. Limiting the extraction of outcomes to primary outcomes or outcomes commonly reported in pre-eclampsia trials reduced the number and diversity of potential core outcomes identified. Thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews ensured an additional five patient reported outcomes and six outcomes related to future child health were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Future core outcome set developers should use quantitative and qualitative methods when developing a long list of potential core outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @OfficialNIHR research published in @BJOGtweets informs new recommendations for future @coreoutcomes developers.

Correlation of preoperative biomarkers with severity of adhesion in endometriosis

This study was undertaken to evaluate the correlation between preoperative Serum markers and pelvic adhesions in endometriosis patients and to explore the markers' clinical value for outcome prediction. Preoperative blood Serum and CA 125 results were obtained and pelvic adhesion scores were calculated. The patient group with adhesion scores less than 28 points was defined as the mild adhesion group, and those with a score of 28 or more were members of the severe adhesion group. The CA 125 level was significantly higher in the severe adhesion group than in the mild adhesion group. The CA 125 level, size of the largest cyst, and WBC count were associated with the level of pelvic adhesion. Adhesion scores were significantly higher in the CA 125 ≥ 35 U/mL group than in the CA 125 < 35 U/mL group. Patients with a preoperative CA 125 level higher than 35 U/mL are at high risk for pelvic adhesion.

Core outcome set for research studies evaluating treatments for twin-twin transfusion syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To develop, using a Delphi procedure and a nominal group technique, a core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating treatments for twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), which should assist in standardizing outcome selection, collection and reporting in future research studies.

METHODS

An international steering group comprising healthcare professionals, researchers and patients with experience of TTTS guided the development of this COS. Potential core outcomes, identified through a comprehensive literature review and supplemented by outcomes suggested by the steering group, were entered into a three-round Delphi survey. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and patients or relatives of patients who had experienced TTTS were invited to participate. Consensus was defined a priori using the 15%/70% definition of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. The modified nominal group technique was used to evaluate the consensus outcomes in a face-to-face consultation meeting and identify the final COS.

RESULTS

One hundred and three participants, from 29 countries, participated in the three-round Delphi survey. Of those, 88 completed all three rounds. Twenty-two consensus outcomes were identified through the Delphi procedure and entered into the modified nominal group technique. The consensus meeting was attended by 11 healthcare professionals, two researchers and three patients; 12 core outcomes were prioritized for inclusion in the COS. Fetal core outcomes included live birth, pregnancy loss (including miscarriage, stillbirth, termination of pregnancy and neonatal mortality), subsequent death of a cotwin following single-twin demise at the time of treatment, recurrence of TTTS, twin anemia-polycythemia sequence and amniotic band syndrome. Neonatal core outcomes included gestational age at delivery, birth weight, brain injury syndromes and ischemic limb injury. Maternal core outcomes included maternal mortality and admission to Level-2 or -3 care setting. One aspirational outcome, neurodevelopment at 18-24 months of age, was also prioritized.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing the COS for TTTS within future research studies could make a substantial contribution to advancing the usefulness of research in TTTS. Standardized definitions and measurement instruments are now required for individual core outcomes. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Patient-reported outcome measures in benign gynecologic surgery: updates and selected tools

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice and research is becoming more prevalent and reflects initiatives to center the patient in healthcare delivery and outcomes assessment. The purpose of this review is to provide a summary description of selected, validated tools used to assess outcomes related to several benign gynecologic conditions: abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids and endometriosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Given the availability of several validated instruments to assess patient outcomes in benign gynecology, there is still significant heterogeneity in tools used in trials.

SUMMARY

Patient outcomes assessment should be an integral part of clinical practice and research in order to treat the whole patient and address any health-related impacts on quality of life. More attention is needed to increase standardization of tools used in research to facilitate assessment of comparative efficacy between treatments.

Outcomes in prevention and management of miscarriage trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a substantial body of research evaluating ways to prevent and manage miscarriage, but all studies do not report on the same outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically, outcomes reported in existing miscarriage trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting prevention or management of miscarriage. Miscarriage was defined as a pregnancy loss in the first trimester.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data about the study characteristics, primary, and secondary outcomes were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 1553 titles and abstracts, from which 208 RCTs were included. For prevention of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was live birth and the top four reported outcomes were pregnancy loss/stillbirth (n = 112), gestation of birth (n = 68), birth dimensions (n = 65), and live birth (n = 49). For these four outcomes, 58 specific measures were used for evaluation. For management of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was efficacy of treatment. The top four reported outcomes were bleeding (n = 186), efficacy of miscarriage treatment (n = 105), infection (n = 97), and quality of life (n = 90). For these outcomes, 130 specific measures were used for evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found considerable variation in the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes along with the measures used to assess them. There is a need for standardised patient-centred clinical outcomes through the development of a core outcome set; the work from this systematic review will form the foundation of the core outcome set for miscarriage.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

There is disparity in the reporting of outcomes and the measures used to assess them in miscarriage trials.

Depressive symptoms among women with endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether endometriosis is associated with depressive symptoms, and whether the association is modulated by pelvic pain.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched through September 2017.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The following eligibility criteria applied: full-text original article; quantitative data about depressive symptoms or depression; comparison of women with and without endometriosis, or women with endometriosis with and without pelvic pain. Articles reporting duplicated data were excluded.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Two reviewers selected and reviewed the studies. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or a third opinion. Qualitative synthesis was performed through tabulation and assessment using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Effect sizes were pooled through meta-analysis, and moderator analyses were performed to identify potential confounders with several variables: region of the sample, method of ascertainment of endometriosis, method of measurement of depression, year of publication, and quality score.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of 24 studies (99,614 women) showed higher levels of depression among women with endometriosis compared to controls (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.32). The heterogeneity in this analysis (I² = 68%) was not explained by any of the moderating variables. When only healthy controls were considered, a larger endometriosis-depression effect was found (11 studies, SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.24-0.73; I² = 69%). Endometriosis patients reporting pelvic pain had significantly higher levels of depression compared to those without pain (4 studies; SMD, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.31; I² = 0%). No significant difference was found between women with pelvic pain and endometriosis and those with pelvic pain but without endometriosis (11 studies, SMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.04; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The association between endometriosis and depressive symptoms is largely determined by chronic pain but may also be modulated by individual and context vulnerabilities. Awareness of the complex relationship between endometriosis and depressive symptoms informs tailored care and patient-centered research outcomes.

Study protocol: developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set for selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies

BACKGROUND

Selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity and represents a clinical dilemma. Interventions include expectant management with early preterm delivery if there are signs of fetal compromise, selective termination of the compromised twin, fetoscopic laser coagulation of the communicating placental vessels or termination of the whole pregnancy. Previous studies evaluating interventions have reported many different outcomes and outcome measures. Such variation makes comparing, contrasting, and combining results challenging, limiting ongoing research on this uncommon condition to inform clinical practice. We aim to produce, disseminate, and implement a core outcome set for selective fetal growth restriction research in monochorionic twin pregnancies.

METHODS

An international steering group, including professionals, researchers, and lay experts, has been established to oversee the development of this core outcome set. The methods have been guided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative Handbook. Potential core outcomes will be developed by undertaking a systematic review of studies evaluating interventions for selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies. Potential core outcomes will be entered into a three-round Delphi survey and key stakeholders including clinical professionals, researchers, and lay experts will be invited to participate. Repeated reflection and rescoring of individual outcomes should encourage group and individual stakeholder convergence towards consensus outcomes which will be entered into a modified Nominal Group Technique to finalize the core outcome set. Once core outcomes have been agreed, we will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for each outcome.

DISCUSSION

The development, dissemination, and implementation of a core outcome set for selective fetal growth restriction should ensure that future research protocols select, collect, and report outcomes and outcome measures in a standardized manner. Data synthesis will be possible on a broad level and rigorous implementation should advance the quality of research studies and their effective use in order to guide clinical practice, improve patient care, maternal, short-term perinatal outcomes, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) registration number: 998. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42018092697 . 18th April 2018.

Tackling poorly selected, collected, and reported outcomes in obstetrics and gynecology research

Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. To enable this, randomized controlled trials must select, collect, and report outcomes that are both relevant to clinical practice and genuinely reflect the perspectives of key stakeholders including health care professionals, researchers, and patients. Unfortunately, many randomized controlled trials fall short of this requirement. Complex issues, including a failure to take into account the perspectives of key stakeholders when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and measurement instruments, and outcome reporting bias make research evidence difficult to interpret, undermining the translation of research into clinical practice. Problems with poor outcome selection, measurement, and reporting can be addressed by developing, disseminating, and implementing core outcome sets. A core outcome set represents a minimum data set of outcomes developed using robust consensus science methods engaging diverse stakeholders including health care professionals, researchers, and patients. Core outcomes should be routinely utilized by researchers, collected in a standardized manner, and reported consistently in the final publication. They are currently being developed across our specialty including infertility, endometriosis, and preeclampsia. Recognizing poorly selected, collected, and reported outcomes as serious hindrances to progress in our specialty, more than 80 journals including the Journal, have come together to support the Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn Health (CROWN) initiative. The consortium supports researchers to develop, disseminate, and implement core outcome sets. Implementing core outcome sets could make a profound contribution to addressing poorly selected, collected, and reported outcomes. Implementation should ensure future randomized controlled trials hold the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance patient care, and improve patient outcomes.

Higher number of items associated with significantly lower response rates in COS Delphi surveys

OBJECTIVES

The Delphi method is commonly used to achieve consensus in core outcome set (COS) development. It is important to try to maximize response rates to Delphi studies and minimize attrition rates and potential for bias. The factors that impact response rates in a Delphi study used for COS development are unknown. The objective of this study was to explore the impact of design characteristics on response rates in Delphi surveys within COS development.

METHODS

Published and ongoing studies that included Delphi to develop a COS were eligible. Second round voting response rates were analyzed, and multilevel linear regression was conducted to investigate whether design characteristics were associated with the response rate.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included. Two characteristics were significantly associated with a lower response rate: larger panels and studies with more items included.

CONCLUSION

COS developers should pay attention to methods when designing a COS development study; in particular, the size of the panels and the size of the list of outcomes. We identified other potential design characteristics that might influence response rates but were unable to explore them in this analysis. These should be reported in future reports to allow for further investigation.