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

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on childbirth perineal trauma for the development of a Core Outcome Set

OBJECTIVES

Perineal injury occurs in 85% of cases during vaginal childbirth. This study aimed to synthesize qualitative data on women's perceptions of perineal trauma during vaginal childbirth.

STUDY DESIGN

Thematic synthesis was applied utilizing a structured three-step framework. First, line-by-line coding strategy was applied to the included studies. Secondly, related codes were grouped together to develop descriptive themes to emphasize what matters most for women suffering from childbirth perineal trauma. Thirdly, analytical themes were developed. The quality of the included studies was high based on the assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool.

RESULTS

Ten eligible studies were included in the meta-synthesis. Twenty-three codes encompassing multiple aspects of childbirth trauma from women's perspective were organised into a set of eight descriptive themes: psychosocial effects, communication, recovery, pain, support, knowledge of childbirth perineal trauma, sexuality, and prioritization.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the descriptive themes, psychosocial effects, communication, and recovery exhibited the highest prevalence. The findings of this meta-synthesis may serve as a reporting guideline for future studies investigating the consequences of childbirth perineal trauma, ensuring that women's priorities are accurately reflected in reported outcomes.

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.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡

STUDY QUESTION

Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals 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. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. 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.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. 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.

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.

A meta-synthesis of qualitative literature on female chronic pelvic pain for the development of a core outcome set: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Qualitative research has an increasing role in the development of core outcome sets (COS) adding patient perspectives to the considerations of core outcomes. We aimed to identify priorities of women with experience of chronic pelvic pain (CPP).

METHODS

The search strategy was a systematic review of qualitative studies identified from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycInfo databases. Selection criteria were qualitative studies exploring the experience of women with CPP. Two independent researchers extracted data and summarized findings using thematic analysis. A CERQual assessment was performed to assess the confidence of review findings.

RESULTS

We identified pertinent issues affecting women with CPP including the lack of holistic care, influence of psychosocial factors and the impact of pain on quality of life. Five meta-themes central to delivering a patient-centred approach were highlighted: acceptance of pain, quality of life, management of CPP, communication and support. Management of CPP was the most commonly reported meta-theme across seven studies and half of studies reported quality of life, management, communication and support. Quality appraisal of included studies identified only a single study that met all CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) criteria. There was high confidence in the evidence for acceptance of pain, quality of life and communication meta-themes.

CONCLUSION

Meta-themes revealed by this review should be considered as a priority and reflected in outcomes reported by future studies evaluating interventions for CPP. In addition, these themes should be considered by clinicians managing women with CPP.

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 tool for assessing the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting within clinical trials in pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials provide fundamental evidence used to inform healthcare decisions at patient- and population levels and it is thus important that trials consider outcomes relevant to both patients and stakeholders. Although validated tools assessing other aspects of trial integrity exist, there is no tool for assessing the breadth and completeness of outcomes measured. Our objective was to develop a comprehensiveness of outcome reporting (COR) tool to assess this within trials in pregnancy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We developed a tool that aids in visualizing outcome reporting through the automatic generation of a heatmap, enabling assessment of the range of maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes included in clinical trials. Outcome reporting and measurement of each study is compared to a context-specific, user-determined, ideal standard set of outcomes, created by initially considering all domains within five core outcome areas. These include mortality, morbidity, functioning/life-impact, resource-use, and adverse events, as identified by the most recent taxonomy for outcomes in medical research. We tested the tool's functionality using trials previously identified as studies on obesity in pregnant patients, and further compared the utility of the COR Tool against Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool using correlational analysis.

RESULTS

The pilot heatmap using clinical trials studying obesity in pregnancy (n = 15), illustrated a lack of comprehensiveness of reported outcomes in the majority of studies. Included trials were found to readily report physiological/clinical outcome but consistently neglected outcome areas related to functioning, delivery of care, resource-use, and adverse events. Outcome areas reported and measured were done so with largely varying degrees of quality. When the COR Tool was compared with Cochrane's RoB 2.0 Tool on a scatter plot, only a weak correlation was found (R = 0.2936, R²  = 0.0862) CONCLUSIONS: The COR Tool will promote transparency in clarifying what outcomes a trial's conclusions are based on, encourage trialists to consider outcomes related to all aspects of maternal and fetal/neonatal health, and support reviewers in appraising outcome reporting and measurement in the assessment of trial integrity. Used in tandem with RoB tools and core outcome sets, we hope the COR Tool will meaningfully contribute to improving maternal-infant health.

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.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION

Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals 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. 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 Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. 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.].

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.

Patients and Health Care Providers Identify Important Outcomes for Research on Pregnancy and Heart Disease

Background

A core outcome set for studies on cardiac disease in pregnancy is being developed. Incorporating perspectives of patients and health care providers (HCPs) is an essential step in developing this core outcome set, and eliciting these outcomes is the objective of this study.

Methods

We interviewed pregnant women with heart disease, family members, and HCPs, until data saturation was attained. Participants were asked to share experiences and perspectives, and comment on outcomes they deemed important. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and interpretive analysis was used to translate experiences into measurable outcomes. These were classified under 5 core outcome areas, based on a taxonomy of outcomes for medical research. A comparison of the distribution of outcomes within outcome areas, between patients and HCPs, and between interviews and published literature is presented.

Results

We obtained 17 outcomes from 13 patients and 3 family members, mostly related to general wellness of the baby, congenital anomalies, mental health, and health care delivery; and 45 outcomes from 10 HCPs, which were mostly clinical. Outcomes in published literature when compared with participant interviews put greater emphasis on clinical outcomes (94% vs 76.5%, P = 0.03) and limited emphasis on life impact (0% vs 17.6%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Although clinical outcomes are the main focus of published research in heart disease and pregnancy, patients and HCPs emphasize the importance of outcomes related to general maternal and fetal well-being and life impact, which are seldom reported. Including these outcomes in future studies is essential to facilitating patient-centred care for pregnant women with cardiac disease.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies on Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy (COSCarP): a study protocol

Background

Clinical studies looking at interventions to optimize pregnancy and long-term outcomes for women with cardiac disease and their babies are inconsistent in their reporting of clinical outcomes, making it difficult to compare results across studies and draw meaningful conclusions. The development of a core outcome set (COS)—a standardized, minimum set of outcomes that must be collected and reported in all studies—is a practical solution to this problem.

Methods/design

We will follow a five-step process in developing a COS for studies on pregnant women with cardiac disease. First, a systematic literature review will identify all reported outcomes (including patient-reported outcomes) and definitions. Second, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the care of pregnant women with cardiac disease will determine their perspective and add new outcomes that they consider important. Third, an international electronic Delphi survey will narrow outcomes obtained through the first two steps, in an attempt to arrive at a consensus. Fourth, a face-to-face consensus meeting will deliberate to finalize the COS. Finally, measurement tools and definitions for included outcomes will be determined through a series of literature reviews and Delphi surveys.

Discussion

This protocol provides an overview of the steps involved in the development of a COS that must be reported in studies involving pregnant women with cardiac disease, in an attempt to harmonize outcome reporting and ensure the validity of study results that will not only inform clinical practice and future research but also encourage the development of COS in other areas of medicine.

COMET core outcome set registration

http://www.cometinitiative.org/studies/details/834