Outcome reporting across randomised controlled trials evaluating therapeutic interventions for pre-eclampsia

Core outcome set for perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core set of prenatal and neonatal outcomes for clinical studies evaluating perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia, using a validated consensus-building method.

METHODS

An international steering group comprising 13 leading maternal-fetal medicine specialists, neonatologists, pediatric surgeons, patient representatives, researchers and methodologists guided the development of this core outcome set. Potential outcomes were collected through a systematic review of the literature and entered into a two-round online Delphi survey. A call was made for stakeholders with experience of congenital diaphragmatic hernia to review the list and score outcomes based on their perceived relevance. Outcomes that fulfilled the consensus criteria defined a priori were discussed subsequently in online breakout meetings. Results were reviewed in a consensus meeting, during which the core outcome set was defined. Finally, the definitions, measurement methods and aspirational outcomes were defined in online and in-person definition meetings by a selection of 45 stakeholders.

RESULTS

Overall, 221 stakeholders participated in the Delphi survey and 198 completed both rounds. Fifty outcomes met the consensus criteria and were discussed and rescored by 78 stakeholders in the breakout meetings. During the consensus meeting, 93 stakeholders agreed eventually on eight outcomes, which constituted the core outcome set. Maternal and obstetric outcomes included maternal morbidity related to the intervention and gestational age at delivery. Fetal outcomes included intrauterine demise, interval between intervention and delivery and change in lung size in utero around the time of the intervention. Neonatal outcomes included neonatal mortality, pulmonary hypertension and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Definitions and measurement methods were formulated by 45 stakeholders, who also added three aspirational outcomes: duration of invasive ventilation, duration of oxygen supplementation and use of pulmonary vasodilators at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed with relevant stakeholders a core outcome set for studies evaluating perinatal interventions in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Its implementation should facilitate the comparison and combination of trial results, enabling future research to better guide clinical practice. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

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.

Preeclampsia and Fetal Congenital Heart Defects

Endothelial dysfunction, impaired implantation and placental insufficiency have been identified as mechanisms behind the development of pre-eclampsia, resulting in angiogenic factors' alteration. Angiogenic imbalance is also associated with congenital heart defects, and this common physiologic pathway may explain the association between them and pre-eclampsia. This review aims to understand the physiology shared by these two entities and whether women with pre-eclampsia have an increased risk of fetal congenital heart defects (or the opposite). The present research has highlighted multiple vasculogenic pathways associated with heart defects and preeclampsia, but also epigenetic and environmental factors, contributing both. It is also known that fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease have an increased risk of several comorbidities, including intrauterine growth restriction. Moreover, the impact of pre-eclampsia goes beyond pregnancy as it increases the risk for following pregnancies and for diseases later in life in both offspring and mothers. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with these conditions, it is of foremost importance to understand how they are related and its causative mechanisms. This knowledge may allow earlier diagnosis, an adequate surveillance or even the implementation of preventive strategies.

Outcomes to measure the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain management for women during labour and birth: a review of systematic reviews and randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological pain management options can relieve women's pain during labour and birth. Trials of these interventions have used a wide variety of outcomes, complicating meaningful comparisons of their effects. To facilitate better assessment of the effectiveness of labour pain management in trials and meta-analyses, consensus about key outcomes and the development of a core outcome set is essential.

OBJECTIVE

To identify all outcomes used in studies of pharmacological pain management interventions during labour and birth.

DESIGN

A review of systematic reviews and their included randomised controlled trials was undertaken.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane CENTRAL was searched to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews describing pharmacological pain management options for labour and birth. Search terms included 'pain management', 'labour' and variants, with no limits on year of publication or language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cochrane reviews and randomised controlled trials contained within these reviews were included, provided they compared a pharmacological intervention with other pain management options, placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All outcomes reported by reviews or trials were extracted and tabulated, with frequencies of individual outcomes reported.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine Cochrane reviews and 227 unique trials were included. In total, 146 unique outcomes were identified and categorised into maternal, fetal, neonatal, child, health service, provider's perspective or economic outcome domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of pharmacological pain management interventions during labour and birth vary widely between trials. The standardisation of trial outcomes would permit the assessment of meta-analyses for best clinical practice.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Outcomes to measure pharmacological pain management options during labour are highly variable and require standardisation.

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.

Standardised Outcome Reporting for the Nutrition Management of Complex Chronic Disease: A Rapid Review

Individuals with coexisting chronic diseases or with complex chronic disease are among the most challenging and costly patients to treat, placing a growing demand on healthcare systems. Recommending effective treatments, including nutrition interventions, relies on standardised outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to enable data synthesis. This rapid review sought to determine how the scope and consistency of the outcomes reported by RCTs investigating nutrition interventions for the management of complex chronic disease compared to what is recommended by the core outcome sets (COS) for individual disease states. Peer-reviewed RCTs published between January 2010 and July 2020 were systematically sourced from PubMed, CINAHL and Embase, and COS were sourced from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. A total of 45 RCTs (43 studies) and 7 COS were identified. Outcomes were extracted from both the RCTs and COS and were organised using COMET Taxonomy Core Areas. A total of 66 outcomes and 439 outcome measures were reported by the RCTs. The RCTs demonstrated extensive outcome heterogeneity, with only five outcomes (5/66, 8%) being reported with relative consistency (cited by ≥50% of publications). Furthermore, the scope of the outcomes reported by studies was limited, with a notable paucity of patient-reported outcomes. Poor agreement (25%) was observed between the outcomes reported in the RCTs and those recommended by the COS. This review urges greater uptake of the existing COS and the development of a COS for complex chronic disease to be considered so that evidence can be better synthesised regarding effective nutrition interventions.

Prediction of Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Related to Placental Dysfunction Using the sFlt-1/PlGF Ratio: A Narrative Review

The sFlt-1 (soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1)/PlGF (placental growth factor) ratio is a helpful tool for the prediction and diagnosis of preeclampsia (PE). Current data even show that the ratio has the potential to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO) caused by placental pathologies. The aim of this article is to give a brief overview of recent findings on APO predictions based on the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio. The focus is on obstetric pathologies related to placental dysfunction (PD) such as PE and/or fetal growth restriction (FGR). New uses of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio as a predictor of APO demonstrate its potential with regard to planning hospitalization and corticosteroid administration and the optimal timing of delivery. However, prospective interventional studies are warranted to define the exact role of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio as a predictor of adverse pregnancy outcomes caused by placental pathologies.

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.

Study protocol: a core outcome set for perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia

Background

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is, depending of the severity, a birth defect associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Prenatal screening by ultrasound may detect this condition and comprehensive assessment of severity is possible, allowing for in utero referral to an experienced centre for planned delivery. In an effort to improve outcomes, prenatal interventions to stimulate lung development were proposed. Along the same lines, new postnatal management strategies are being developed. In order to enable proper comparison of novel perinatal interventions as well as outcomes, a set of uniform and relevant outcome measures is required. Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed, clearly defined sets of outcomes to be measured in a standardised manner and reported consistently. Herein we aim to describe the methodology we will use to define a COS for perinatal and neonatal outcomes of foetuses and newborns with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and to draft a dissemination and implementation plan.

Methods

We will use the methodology described in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative Handbook. An international steering group will be created to guide the development of the COS. We are systematically reviewing the literature to identify all potential relevant pre- and neonatal outcomes previously used in studies on perinatal interventions for CDH. We will build a consensus on these core outcomes in a stakeholder group using the Delphi method. After completion, a stakeholder meeting will decide on a final COS, using a modified Nominal Group Technique. Thereafter, we will review potential definitions and measurements of these outcomes, and again a consensus meeting will be organised, to finalise the COS before dissemination.

Discussion

We have started a procedure to develop a COS for studies on perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia, with the purpose of improving the quality of research, guide clinical practice and improve patient care and eventual use in future clinical trials, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

Trial registration

We prospectively registered this study in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42019124399) and The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative (registration number:1296).

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.].

Preterm parturition and pre-eclampsia: The confluence of two great gestational syndromes

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth (PTB) and pre-eclampsia independently, and frequently concurrently, adversely affect the pregnancy outcomes of millions of mothers and infants worldwide each year.

OBJECTIVES

To fill the gap between PTB and pre-eclampsia, which continue to constitute the two most important current global challenges to maternal and perinatal health.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until December 2019 using the terms spontaneous PTB (SPTB), indicated preterm delivery (IPTD), early-onset pre-eclampsia, and pre-eclampsia.

RESULTS

History of PTB and pre-eclampsia were the strongest risk factors contributing to the occurrence of SPTB or IPTB. The risk of PTB and pre-eclampsia among non-Hispanic African American women was higher than the rate among all other racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Low-dose aspirin (LDA) has been reported to reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia by at least 10% and PTB by at least 14%. Lastly, women and their fetuses who develop early-onset pre-eclampsia are at higher risk for developing hypertension and cardiovascular disease later in life.

CONCLUSIONS

While better clarity is needed, efforts to coordinate prevention of both PTB and pre-eclampsia, even though imperfect, are critically important as part of any program to make motherhood as safe as possible.

Development of a core outcome set for studies on prevention and management of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism (COSPVenTE): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pregnancy and post partum are times of heightened risk for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which in turn is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and long-term morbidity. The current research aimed at improving health guidelines for women with pregnancy-associated VTE is limited by inconsistency in outcome reporting preventing comparison across studies, and lack of input from patients with respect to outcomes they propose are most important to measure. A suggested solution is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that defines the minimum criteria for outcome reporting in clinical trials and prospective studies. COSs function to facilitate data harmonisation and increase homogeneity in outcome reporting while incorporating the voice of women in this population in the planning of research to inform their ongoing care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of a COS for studies on pregnancy-associated VTE will comprise five steps. First, a systematic review of the published literature will identify currently reported outcomes, their definitions and measurements if applicable. This will be followed by in-person interviews with patients, clinicians, researchers, hospital administrators and policy-makers to identify outcomes they consider important. Third, the long list of outcomes obtained from steps I and II will be condensed through online Delphi surveys involving an international group of relevant stakeholders including patients. This will be followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting with representatives of all stakeholder groups to arrive at a consensus on the final COS. Lastly, to determine how the identified core outcomes should be measured, another literature review and Delphi process will be carried out as necessary.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB 18-0314-E). Study results will be published in open-access journals and presented at obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine and haematology conferences. All progress will be documented on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials databases.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019111479.

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.

Adding value to core outcome set development using multimethod systematic reviews

Trials evaluating the same interventions rarely measure or report identical outcomes. This limits the possibility of aggregating effect sizes across studies to generate high-quality evidence through systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To address this problem, core outcome sets (COS) establish agreed sets of outcomes to be used in all future trials. When developing COS, potential outcome domains are identified by systematically reviewing the outcomes of trials, and increasingly, through primary qualitative research exploring the experiences of key stakeholders, with relevant outcome domains subsequently determined through transdisciplinary consensus development. However, the primary qualitative component can be time consuming with unclear impact. We aimed to examine the potential added value of a qualitative systematic review alongside a quantitative systematic review of trial outcomes to inform COS development in neonatal care using case analysis methods. We compared the methods and findings of a scoping review of neonatal trial outcomes and a scoping review of qualitative research on parents', patients', and professional caregivers' perspectives of neonatal care. Together, these identified a wider range and greater depth of health and social outcome domains, some unique to each review, which were incorporated into the subsequent Delphi process and informed the final set of core outcome domains. Qualitative scoping reviews of participant perspectives research, used in conjunction with quantitative scoping reviews of trials, could identify more outcome domains for consideration and could provide greater depth of understanding to inform stakeholder group discussion in COS development. This is an innovation in the application of research synthesis methods.

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.

Treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy: we still do not know what the best option is

Intracranial hemorrhage and stroke are primary causes of maternal mortality in pregnancies affected by hypertensive disorders. As such antihypertensive therapy plays a crucial role in the management of severe hypertension. However, the target level to achieve the best outcome for both - mother and fetus - is still unclear. Moreover, given the lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized key outcomes, the current choice of antihypertensive medications depends rather on clinicians' preference. Furthermore, data on long-term outcomes of offspring is not available. Therefore, there is an urgent need for randomized trials comparing different anti-hypertensive options to address efficacy and safety questions.

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.

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.

Variation in outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials of interventions for prevention and treatment of fetal growth restriction

OBJECTIVE

Although fetal growth restriction (FGR) is well known to be associated with adverse outcomes for the mother and offspring, effective interventions for the management of FGR are yet to be established. Trials reporting interventions for the prevention and treatment of FGR may be limited by heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing interventions for the prevention or treatment of FGR, in order to identify and categorize the variation in outcome reporting.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception until August 2018 for RCTs investigating therapies for the prevention and treatment of FGR. Studies were assessed systematically and data on outcomes that were reported in the included studies were extracted and categorized. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Jadad score.

RESULTS

The search identified 2609 citations, of which 153 were selected for full-text review and 72 studies (68 trials) were included in the final analysis. There were 44 trials relating to the prevention of FGR and 24 trials investigating interventions for the treatment of FGR. The mean Jadad score of all studies was 3.07, and only nine of them received a score of 5. We identified 238 outcomes across the included studies. The most commonly reported were birth weight (88.2%), gestational age at birth (72.1%) and small-for-gestational age (67.6%). Few studies reported on any measure of neonatal morbidity (27.9%), while adverse effects of the interventions were reported in only 17.6% of trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation in outcome reporting across RCTs of therapies for the prevention and treatment of FGR. The clinical applicability of future research would be enhanced by the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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.

Outcome reporting across randomized trials and observational studies evaluating treatments for twin-twin transfusion syndrome: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Potential treatments for the condition require robust evaluation. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcome reporting across observational studies and randomized controlled trials assessing treatments for TTTS.

METHODS

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from inception to August 2016. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials reporting outcome following treatment for TTTS in monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancy and monochorionic-triamniotic or dichorionic-triamniotic triplet pregnancy were included. Outcome reporting was systematically extracted and categorized.

RESULTS

Six randomized trials and 94 observational studies were included, reporting data from 20 071 maternal participants and 3199 children. Six different treatments were evaluated. Included studies reported 62 different outcomes, including six fetal, seven offspring mortality, 25 neonatal, six early childhood and 18 maternal/operative outcomes. Outcomes were reported inconsistently across trials. For example, when considering offspring mortality, 31 (31%) studies reported live birth, 31 (31%) reported intrauterine death, 49 (49%) reported neonatal mortality and 17 (17%) reported perinatal mortality. Four (4%) studies reported respiratory distress syndrome. Only 19 (19%) studies were designed for long-term follow-up and 11 (11%) of these reported cerebral palsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies evaluating treatments for TTTS have often neglected to report clinically important outcomes, especially neonatal morbidity outcomes, and most are not designed for long-term follow-up. The development of a core outcome set could help standardize outcome collection and reporting in TTTS studies. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set

Introduction

We assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality.

Methods

We searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1–5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1–6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables.

Results

Eighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = −0.013; P = 0.918).

Conclusions

Anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues.

Do we need a core outcome set for childbirth perineal trauma research? A systematic review of outcome reporting in randomised trials evaluating the management of childbirth trauma

BACKGROUND

Selecting appropriate outcomes to reflect both beneficial and harmful effects is a critical step in designing childbirth trauma trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes and outcome measures reported in randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions for childbirth trauma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised trials were identified by searching bibliographical databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of different techniques in the management of perineal lacerations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality, and extracted the relevant data. Spearman's ρ correlation and multivariate linear regression analysis using the backward stepwise model were used for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-eight randomised trials, reporting data from 20 308 women, were included. Seventeen different interventions were evaluated. Included trials reported 77 different outcomes and 50 different outcome measures. Commonly reported outcomes included pain (34 trials; 70%), wound healing (20 trials; 42%), and anorectal dysfunction (16 trials, 33%). In the multivariate analysis, no relationship was demonstrated between the quality of outcome reporting and year of publication (P = 0.31), journal impact factor (P = 0.49), and methodological quality (P = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting in childbirth trauma research is heterogeneous. Developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set in future childbirth trauma research could help address these issues.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Developing @coreoutcomes for childbirth trauma research could help to reduce #research waste.

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

STUDY QUESTIONS

We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus ‘core’ outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This project is funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund (3712235). BWM reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, Merck, and ObsEva. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Fractyl and Ogeda and research sponsorship from Ferring. S.B. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Inadequate safety reporting in pre-eclampsia trials: a systematic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials and their syntheses in meta-analyses offer a unique opportunity to assess the frequency and severity of adverse reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess safety reporting in pre-eclampsia trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Systematic search using bibliographic databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE, from inception to August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials evaluating anticonvulsant or antihypertensive medication for pre-eclampsia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics appraising the adequacy of adverse reaction and toxicity reporting.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 60 randomised trials. Six trials (10%) were registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, two registry records referred to adverse reactions, stating 'safety and toleration' and 'possible side effects' would be collected. Twenty-six trials (43%) stated the frequency of withdrawals within each study arm, and five trials (8%) adequately reported these withdrawals. Adverse reactions were inconsistently reported across eligible trials: 24 (40%) reported no serious adverse reactions and 36 (60%) reported no mild adverse reactions. The methods of definition or measurement of adverse reactions were infrequently reported within published trial reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-eclampsia trials regularly omit critical information related to safety. Despite the paucity of reporting, randomised trials collect an enormous amount of safety data. Developing and implementing a minimum data set could help to improve safety reporting, permitting a more balanced assessment of interventions by considering the trade-off between the benefits and harms.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research (DRF-2014-07-051), UK; Maternity Forum, Royal Society of Medicine, UK.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Developing @coreoutcomes could help to improve safety reporting in #preeclampsia trials. @NIHR_DC.

A systematic review of primary outcomes and outcome measure reporting in randomized trials evaluating treatments for pre-eclampsia

BACKGROUND

An evaluation of outcome reporting is required to develop a core outcome set.

OBJECTIVES

To assess primary outcomes and outcome measure reporting in pre-eclampsia trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Five online databases were searched from inception to January 2016 using terms including "preeclampsia" and "randomized controlled trial".

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for pre-eclampsia published in any language were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcomes and data on outcome measure reporting were systematically extracted and categorized.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 79 randomized trials including data from 31 615 women were included. Of those, 38 (48%) reported 35 different primary outcomes; 28 were maternal outcomes and seven were fetal/neonatal outcomes. Three randomized trials reported composite outcomes, incorporating between six and nine outcome components. The method of definition or measurement was infrequently or poorly reported. Even when outcomes were consistent across trials, different methods of definition or measurement were frequently described.

CONCLUSIONS

In randomized trials evaluating interventions for pre-eclampsia, critical information related to the primary outcome, including definition and measurement, is regularly omitted. Developing a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia trials would help to inform primary outcome selection and outcome measure reporting.