Developing, implementing and disseminating a core outcome set for neonatal medicine

Heterogeneity and Gaps in Reporting Primary Outcomes From Neonatal Trials

OBJECTIVES

Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and application of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary outcomes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of primary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.

How to reach agreement: the impact of different analytical approaches to Delphi process results in core outcomes set development

BACKGROUND

Core outcomes sets are increasingly used to define research outcomes that are most important for a condition. Different consensus methods are used in the development of core outcomes sets; the most common is the Delphi process. Delphi methodology is increasingly standardised for core outcomes set development, but uncertainties remain. We aimed to empirically test how the use of different summary statistics and consensus criteria impact Delphi process results.

METHODS

Results from two unrelated child health Delphi processes were analysed. Outcomes were ranked by mean, median, or rate of exceedance, and then pairwise comparisons were undertaken to analyse whether the rankings were similar. The correlation coefficient for each comparison was calculated, and Bland-Altman plots produced. Youden's index was used to assess how well the outcomes ranked highest by each summary statistic matched the final core outcomes sets. Consensus criteria identified in a review of published Delphi processes were applied to the results of the two child-health Delphi processes. The size of the consensus sets produced by different criteria was compared, and Youden's index was used to assess how well the outcomes that met different criteria matched the final core outcomes sets.

RESULTS

Pairwise comparisons of different summary statistics produced similar correlation coefficients. Bland-Altman plots showed that comparisons involving ranked medians had wider variation in the ranking. No difference in Youden's index for the summary statistics was found. Different consensus criteria produced widely different sets of consensus outcomes (range: 5-44 included outcomes). They also showed differing abilities to identify core outcomes (Youden's index range: 0.32-0.92). The choice of consensus criteria had a large impact on Delphi results.

DISCUSSION

The use of different summary statistics is unlikely to affect how outcomes are ranked during a Delphi process: mean, median, and rates of exceedance produce similar results. Different consensus criteria have a large impact on resultant consensus outcomes and potentially on subsequent core outcomes sets: our results confirm the importance of adhering to pre-specified consensus criteria.

Association between timing of re-introduction of enteral feeding and short-term outcomes following laparotomy for necrotising enterocolitis

PURPOSE

To investigate the relationship between timing of re-introduction of feeds following surgery for Necrotising Enterocolitis (NEC) and important early outcomes.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from paediatric surgical units in UK/Ireland of infants who underwent laparotomy for NEC between 01/03/2013 and 28/02/2014. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare the relationship of early (≤ 7 days) and later (8-27 days) re-introduction of feeding after surgery on death or need for PN at 28 days, correcting for known cofounders.

RESULTS

41/143 infants (29%) received early and 102/143 infants (71%) had delayed reintroduction of feeding. Infants in the early feeding group had a higher gestational age at birth, higher proportion of growth restriction, lower inotrope requirement, and weremore likely to have undergone primary anastomosis. Following adjustment there was no statistically significant difference detected in the rate of death or need for PN at 28 days, adjusted OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-1.1), noting the limited statistical power of this comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from this study to support a minimum period of 7 days nil by mouth post laparotomy for infants with NEC. Early feed reintroduction following laparotomy for NEC is safe in appropriate cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II - Treatment Study Group; Prospective comparative study.

Outcomes in relation to early parenteral nutrition use in preterm neonates born between 30 and 33 weeks' gestation: a propensity score matched observational study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether in preterm neonates parenteral nutrition use in the first 7 postnatal days, compared with no parenteral nutrition use, is associated with differences in survival and other important morbidities. Randomised trials in critically ill older children show that harms, such as nosocomial infection, outweigh benefits of early parenteral nutrition administration; there is a paucity of similar data in neonates.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using propensity matching including 35 maternal, infant and organisational factors to minimise bias and confounding.

SETTING

National, population-level clinical data obtained for all National Health Service neonatal units in England and Wales.

PATIENTS

Preterm neonates born between 30⁺⁰ and 32⁺⁶ weeks^+days.

INTERVENTIONS

The exposure was parenteral nutrition administered in the first 7 days of postnatal life; the comparator was no parenteral nutrition.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival to discharge from neonatal care. Secondary outcomes comprised the neonatal core outcome set.

RESULTS

16 292 neonates were compared in propensity score matched analyses. Compared with matched neonates not given parenteral nutrition in the first postnatal week, neonates who received parenteral nutrition had higher survival at discharge (absolute rate increase 0.91%; 95% CI 0.53% to 1.30%), but higher rates of necrotising enterocolitis (absolute rate increase 4.6%), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (absolute rate increase 3.9%), late-onset sepsis (absolute rate increase 1.5%) and need for surgical procedures (absolute rate increase 0.92%).

CONCLUSIONS

In neonates born between 30⁺⁰ and 32⁺⁶ weeks' gestation, those given parenteral nutrition in the first postnatal week had a higher rate of survival but higher rates of important neonatal morbidities. Clinician equipoise in this area should be resolved by prospective randomised trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03767634.

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.

The development of a core outcomes set for self-management interventions for patients living with obesity

Self-management interventions (SMIs) can improve the life of patients living with obesity. However, there is variability in the outcomes used to assess the effectiveness of SMIs and these are often not relevant for patients. In the context of COMPAR-EU, our aim was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for the evaluation of SMIs for patients with obesity. We followed a four steps multimethod approach: (1) the development of the initial catalogue of outcomes; (2) a scoping review of reviews on patients' values and preferences on outcomes of self-management (SM); (3) a Delphi survey including patients and patient representatives to rate the importance of outcomes; and (4) a 2-day consensus workshop with patients, patient representatives, healthcare professionals and researchers. The initial catalogue included 82 outcomes. Ten patients and patient's representatives participated in the Delphi survey. We identified 16 themes through the thematic synthesis of the scoping review that informed 37.80% of the outcomes on initial catalogue. Five patients, five healthcare professionals, and four researchers participated in the consensus workshop. After the consensus process, 15 outcomes were selected to be part of the final COS, and five supplementary outcomes were also provided. We developed a COS for the evaluation of SMIs in obesity with a significant involvement of patients and other key stakeholders. This COS will help improving data synthesis and increasing the value of SM research data in healthcare decision making.

The FEED1 trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of full milk feeds versus intravenous fluids with gradual feeding for preterm infants (30–33 weeks gestational age)

Background

In the UK, approximately 8% of live births are preterm (before 37 weeks gestation), more than 90% of whom are born between 30 and 36 weeks, forming the largest proportion of a neonatal units’ workload. Neonatologists are cautious in initiating full milk feeds for preterm infants due to fears of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). There is now evidence to dispute this fear. Small studies have shown that feeding preterm infants full milk feeds enterally from birth could result in a shorter length of hospital stay, which is important to parents, clinicians and NHS services without increasing the risk of NEC. This trial aims to investigate whether full milk feeds initiated in the first 24 h after birth reduces the length of hospital stay in comparison to introduction of gradual milk feeding with IV fluids or parenteral nutrition.

Methods

FEED1 is a multi-centre, open, parallel group, randomised, controlled superiority trial of full milk feeds initiated on the day of birth versus gradual milk feeds for infants born at 30+0 to 32+6 (inclusive) weeks gestation. Recruitment will take place in around 40 UK neonatal units. Mothers will be randomised 1:1 to full milk feeds, starting at 60 ml/kg day, or gradual feeds, as per usual local practice. Mother’s expressed breast milk will always be the first choice of milk, though will likely be supplemented with formula or donor breast milk in the first few days. Feeding data will be collected until full milk feeds are achieved (≥ 140 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days). The primary outcome is length of infant hospital stay. Additional data will be collected 6 weeks post-discharge. Follow-up at 2 years (corrected gestational age) is planned. The sample size is 2088 infants to detect a between group difference in length of stay of 2 days. Accounting for multiple births, this requires 1700 women to be recruited. Primary analysis will compare the length of hospital stay between groups, adjusting for minimisation variables and accounting for multiple births.

Discussion

This trial will provide high-quality evidence on feeding practices for preterm infants. Full milk feeds from day of birth could result in infants being discharged sooner.

Trial registration

ISRCTN ISRCTN89654042. Prospectively registered on 23 September 2019: ISRCTN is a primary registry of the WHO ICTRP network, and all items from the WHO Trial Registration dataset are included.

Neonatal sepsis: a systematic review of core outcomes from randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The lack of a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and a core outcome set (COS) proves a substantial impediment to research that influences policy and practice relevant to key stakeholders, patients and parents.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In the included studies, the described outcomes were extracted in accordance with the provisions of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) handbook and registered.

RESULTS

Among 884 abstracts identified, 90 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Only 30 manuscripts explicitly stated the primary and/or secondary outcomes. A total of 88 distinct outcomes were recorded across all 90 studies included. These were then assigned to seven different domains in line with the taxonomy for classification proposed by the COMET initiative. The most frequently reported outcome was survival with 74% (n = 67) of the studies reporting an outcome within this domain.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review constitutes one of the initial phases in the protocol for developing a COS in neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting in neonatal sepsis hinders comparison and synthesis of data. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to generate a COS in neonatal sepsis by consensus recommendation.

IMPACT

This systematic review identified a wide variation of outcomes reported among published RCTs on the management of neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting hinders comparison and synthesis of data and future meta-analyses with conclusive recommendations on the management of neonatal sepsis are unlikely. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to determine a COS by consensus recommendation with input from all relevant stakeholders.

Are birth outcomes in low risk birth cohorts related to hospital birth volumes? A systematic review

Background

There is convincing evidence that birth in hospitals with high birth volumes increases the chance of healthy survival in high-risk infants. However, it is unclear whether this is true also for low risk infants. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze effects of hospital’s birth volume on mortality, mode of delivery, readmissions, complications and subsequent developmental delays in all births or predefined low risk birth cohorts. The search strategy included EMBASE and Medline supplemented by citing and cited literature of included studies and expert panel highlighting additional literature, published between January/2000 and February/2020. We included studies which were published in English or German language reporting effects of birth volumes on mortality in term or all births in countries with neonatal mortality < 5/1000. We undertook a double-independent title-abstract- and full-text screening and extraction of study characteristics, critical appraisal and outcomes in a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Results

13 retrospective studies with mostly acceptable quality were included. Heterogeneous volume-thresholds, risk adjustments, outcomes and populations hindered a meta-analysis. Qualitatively, four of six studies reported significantly higher perinatal mortality in lower birth volume hospitals. Volume-outcome effects on neonatal mortality (n = 7), stillbirths (n = 3), maternal mortality (n = 1), caesarean sections (n = 2), maternal (n = 1) and neonatal complications (n = 1) were inconclusive.

Conclusion

Analyzed studies indicate higher rates of perinatal mortality for low risk birth in hospitals with low birth volumes. Due to heterogeneity of studies, data synthesis was complicated and a meta-analysis was not possible. Therefore international core outcome sets should be defined and implemented in perinatal registries.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO: CRD42018095289

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03988-y.

Protocol for the development of Core Outcome Sets for Early intervention trials to Prevent Obesity in CHildren (COS-EPOCH)

INTRODUCTION

Childhood overweight and obesity is prevalent in the first 5 years of life, and can result in significant health and economic consequences over the lifetime. The outcomes currently measured and reported in randomised controlled trials of early childhood obesity prevention interventions to reduce this burden of obesity are heterogeneous, and measured in a variety of ways. This variability limits the comparability of findings between studies, and contributes to research waste. This protocol presents the methodology for the development of two core outcome sets (COS) for obesity prevention interventions in children aged from 1 to 5 years from a singular development process: (1) a COS for interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour and (2) a COS for interventions targeting child feeding and dietary intake. Core outcomes related to physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children aged ≤1 year will also be identified to complement an existing COS for early feeding interventions, and provide a broader set of core outcomes in this age range. This will result in a suite of COS useful for measuring and reporting outcomes in early childhood obesity prevention studies, including multicomponent interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Development of the COS will follow international best practice guidelines. A scoping review of trial registries will identify commonly reported outcomes and associated measurement instruments. Key stakeholders involved in obesity prevention, including policy-makers/funders, parents, researchers, health practitioners and community and organisational stakeholders will participate in an e-Delphi study and consensus meeting regarding inclusion of outcomes in the COS. Finally, recommended outcome measure instruments will be identified through literature review and group consensus.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HEAG-H 231_2020). The COS will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and engagement with key stakeholders.

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.

Optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care: a mixed methods consensus process

BACKGROUND

Routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding is widespread in neonatal units but not supported by high-quality evidence. Outcome selection is critical to trial design.

OBJECTIVE

To determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care.

DESIGN

A focused literature review, parent interviews, modified two-round Delphi survey and stakeholder consensus meeting.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-one neonatal healthcare professionals participated in an eDelphi survey; 17 parents were interviewed. 19 parents and neonatal healthcare professionals took part in the consensus meeting.

RESULTS

Literature review generated 14 outcomes, and parent interviews contributed eight additional outcomes; these 22 outcomes were then ranked by 74 healthcare professionals in the first Delphi round where four further outcomes were proposed; 26 outcomes were ranked in the second round by 61 healthcare professionals. Five outcomes were categorised as 'consensus in', and no outcomes were voted 'consensus out'. 'No consensus' outcomes were discussed and voted on in a face-to-face meeting by 19 participants, where four were voted 'consensus in'. The final nine consensus outcomes were: mortality, necrotising enterocolitis, time to full enteral feeds, duration of parenteral nutrition, time feeds stopped per 24 hours, healthcare-associated infection; catheter-associated bloodstream infection, change in weight between birth and neonatal discharge and pneumonia due to milk aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We have identified outcomes for a trial of no routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding in neonatal care. This outcome set will ensure outcomes are important to healthcare professionals and parents.

Self-management interventions for adults living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): The development of a Core Outcome Set for COMPAR-EU project

BACKGROUND

A large body of evidence suggests that self-management interventions (SMIs) may improve outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, accurate comparisons of the relative effectiveness of SMIs are challenging, partly due to heterogeneity of outcomes across trials and uncertainty about the importance of these outcomes for patients. We aimed to develop a core set of patient-relevant outcomes (COS) for SMIs trials to enhance comparability of interventions and ensure person-centred care.

METHODS

We undertook an innovative approach consisting of four interlinked stages: i) Development of an initial catalogue of outcomes from previous EU-funded projects and/or published studies, ii) Scoping review of reviews on patients and caregivers' perspectives to identify outcomes of interest, iii) Two-round Delphi online survey with patients and patient representatives to rate the importance of outcomes, and iv) Face-to-face consensus workshop with patients, patient representatives, health professionals and researchers to develop the COS.

RESULTS

From an initial list of 79 potential outcomes, 16 were included in the COS plus one supplementary outcome relevant to all participants. These were related to patient and caregiver knowledge/competence, self-efficacy, patient activation, self-monitoring, adherence, smoking cessation, COPD symptoms, physical activity, sleep quality, caregiver quality of life, activities of daily living, coping with the disease, participation and decision-making, emergency room visits/admissions and cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The development of the COPD COS for the evaluation of SMIs will increase consistency in the measurement and reporting of outcomes across trials. It will also contribute to more personalized health care and more informed health decisions in clinical practice as patients' preferences regarding COPD outcomes are more systematically included.

The relationship of neurodevelopmental impairment to concurrent early childhood outcomes of extremely preterm infants

OBJECTIVE

Determine how neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) relates to concurrent outcomes for children born extremely preterm.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study children born 22 0/7-26 6/7 weeks' gestation at NICHD Neonatal Research Network hospitals. Outcomes were ascertained at 18-22 months' corrected age.

RESULT

Of 6562 children, 2618 (40%) died and 441 (7%) had no follow-up. Among the remaining 3483 children, 825 (24%), 1576 (45%), 657 (19%), and 425 (12%) had no, potential/mild, moderate, and severe NDI, respectively. Rehospitalization, respiratory medications, surgery, and medical support services were associated with greater NDI severity but affected >10% of children without NDI. Rehospitalization occurred in 40% of children with no NDI (mean (SD): 1.7 (1.3) episodes).

CONCLUSION

Medical, functional, and social outcomes at 18-22 months' corrected age were associated with NDI; however, many children without NDI were affected. These data should contribute to counseling families and the design of studies for childhood outcomes beyond NDI.

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.

Reported outcomes for planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal delivery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is currently no consensus regarding the outcomes and outcome measures that should be reported in studies assessing planned mode of birth.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an inventory for reported outcomes for studies comparing planned caesarean section (CS) and planned vaginal delivery (VD) for women age 18-45.

METHODS

A systematic review of outcomes reported in prospective studies investigating planned CS and planned VD was conducted. Three online databases, Ovid SP version of MEDLINE and EMBASE and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, were searched from 2011 to June 2019. The inclusion criteria were: prospective studies evaluating planned mode of birth, age 18-45, singleton pregnancy, gestational age 37-40 weeks, >100 participants, middle or high income countries. No language restrictions were applied. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts, and subsequently reviewed the full text of each selected study to assess for eligibility. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third author. The selected studies were evaluated using the MOMENT criteria. Outcomes and outcome measures were systematically extracted and organised into an inventory.

RESULTS

63 prospective studies comparing planned CS versus planned VD including data from 6,397,310 women were included. 37 studies (59%) investigating planned CS versus planned VD fulfilled four or more MOMENT criteria. In total, 43 different primary outcomes and 79 different primary outcome measures, and 12 different secondary outcomes and 31 secondary outcome measures were identified from studies investigating planned CS versus planned VD.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study will contribute to the development of a core outcome set for planned mode of birth in the future. Standardising outcomes will aid comparison and interpretation of data pertaining to planned CS versus planned VD. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019133104.

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.].

Core outcomes in neonatology: development of a core outcome set for neonatal research

BACKGROUND

Neonatal research evaluates many different outcomes using multiple measures. This can prevent synthesis of trial results in meta-analyses, and selected outcomes may not be relevant to former patients, parents and health professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To define a core outcome set (COS) for research involving infants receiving neonatal care in a high-income setting.

DESIGN

Outcomes reported in neonatal trials and qualitative studies were systematically reviewed. Stakeholders were recruited for a three-round international Delphi survey. A consensus meeting was held to confirm the final COS, based on the survey results.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred and fourteen former patients, parents, healthcare professionals and researchers took part in the eDelphi survey; 173 completed all three rounds. Sixteen stakeholders participated in the consensus meeting.

RESULTS

The literature reviews identified 104 outcomes; these were included in round 1. Participants proposed 10 additional outcomes; 114 outcomes were scored in rounds 2 and 3. Round 1 scores showed different stakeholder groups prioritised contrasting outcomes. Twelve outcomes were included in the final COS: survival, sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, brain injury on imaging, general gross motor ability, general cognitive ability, quality of life, adverse events, visual impairment/blindness, hearing impairment/deafness, retinopathy of prematurity and chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A COS for clinical trials and other research studies involving infants receiving neonatal care in a high-income setting has been identified. This COS for neonatology will help standardise outcome selection in clinical trials and ensure these are relevant to those most affected by neonatal care.

A Core Outcome Set for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome

BACKGROUND

As rates of neonatal opioid withdrawal are increasing, the need for research to evaluate new treatments is growing. Large heterogeneity exists in health outcomes reported in current literature. Our objective is to develop an evidence-informed and consensus-based core outcome set in neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS-COS) for use in studies and clinical practice.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary steering committee was established. A systematic review and a 3-round Delphi was performed with open-ended and score-based assessments of the importance of each outcome to inform clinical management of neonatal opioid withdrawal. Interviews were conducted with parents and/or caregivers on outcome importance. Finally, a consensus meeting with diverse stakeholders was held to review all data from all sources and establish a core set of outcomes with definitions.

RESULTS

The NOWS-COS was informed by 47 published studies, 41 Delphi participants, and 6 parent interviews. There were 63 outcomes evaluated. Final core outcomes include (1) pharmacologic treatment, (2) total dose of opioid treatment, (3) duration of treatment, (4) adjuvant therapy, (5) feeding difficulties, (6) consolability, (7) time to adequate symptom control, (8) parent-infant bonding, (9) duration of time the neonate spent in the hospital, (10) breastfeeding, (11) weight gain at hospital discharge, (12) readmission to hospital for withdrawal, and (13) neurodevelopment.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an evidence-informed and consensus-based core outcome set. Implementation of this core outcome set will reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate evidence-based decision-making. Future research will disseminate all the findings and pilot test the validity of the NOWS-COS in additional countries and populations to increase generalizability and impact.

"Health, wealth and achievements of former very premature infants in adult life"

Very preterm survivors born in the early neonatal intensive care era are now in their middle adulthood. The literature from cohort studies and population-linked registries indicate that extreme prematurity is associated with lower educational attainment and income, higher need for social assistance, and lower rates of marriage/partnership and reproduction. In addition, with increasing age, many general and system-specific adverse health outcomes, such as psychiatric problems, hypertension, and cardio-metabolic disorders have emerged, resulting in high cumulative health care costs across the life-span. Yet, a significant majority of adults born preterm are leading productive lives and contributing to society. Although this information may not be directly applicable to survivors of modern neonatal intensive care, there is much to learn from these findings to inform and guide us into designing effective strategies to improve the health and well-being of future very premature infants. The longer-term outcome of more recent survivors remains to be determined.

Contemporary Outcomes for Infants with Necrotizing Enterocolitis-A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To develop an accurate understanding of outcomes for necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) to inform parental counseling, clinical care, and research agendas.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of recent (January 2010-January 2018) large cohort studies reporting outcomes of infants who developed NEC. Only studies reporting national, regional, or multicenter outcomes of NEC in high income countries were included. Outcomes assessed were mortality, neurodevelopmental outcome, and intestinal failure. Meta-analyses were used to generate summary statistics for these outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 1375 abstracts, 38 articles were included. Overall mortality was 23.5% in all neonates with confirmed NEC (Bell stage 2a+) (95% CI 18.5%-28.8%), 34.5% (30.1%-39.2%) for neonates that underwent surgery for NEC, 40.5% (37.2%-43.8%) for extremely low birthweight infants (<1000 g), and 50.9% (38.1%-63.5%) for extremely low birthweight infants with surgical NEC. Studies examining causes of neonatal mortality showed NEC is responsible for around 1 in 10 of all neonatal deaths. Neurodevelopmental disability was reported in 4 studies at between 24.8% and 61.1% (1209 total NEC cases). Three studies reported intestinal failure with an incidence of 15.2%-35.0% (n = 1370). The main limitation of this review is the lack of an agreed definition for diagnosing NEC and the differences in the way that outcomes are reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality following NEC remains high. These contemporary data inform clinical care and justify ongoing research efforts. All infants with NEC should have long-term neurodevelopmental assessment. Data on the long-term risk of intestinal failure are limited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42018094791.

Core outcome set for studies investigating management of selective fetal growth restriction in twins

OBJECTIVE

Selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) occurs in monochorionic twin pregnancies when unequal placental sharing leads to restriction in the growth of just one twin. Management options include laser separation of the fetal circulations, selective reduction or expectant management, but what constitutes the best treatment is not yet known. New trials in this area are urgently needed but, in this rare and complex group, maximizing the relevance and utility of clinical research design and outputs is paramount. A core outcome set ensures standardized outcome collection and reporting in future research. The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set for studies evaluating treatments for sFGR in monochorionic twins.

METHODS

An international steering group of clinicians, researchers and patients with experience of sFGR was established to oversee the process of development of a core outcome set for studies investigating the management of sFGR. Outcomes reported in the literature were identified through a systematic review and informed the design of a three-round Delphi survey. Clinicians, researchers, and patients and family representatives participated in the survey. Outcomes were scored on a Likert scale from 1 (limited importance for making a decision) to 9 (critical for making a decision). Consensus was defined a priori as a Likert score of ≥ 8 in the third round of the Delphi survey. Participants were then invited to take part in an international meeting of stakeholders in which the modified nominal group technique was used to consider the consensus outcomes and agree on a final core outcome set.

RESULTS

Ninety-six outcomes were identified from 39 studies in the systematic review. One hundred and three participants from 23 countries completed the first round of the Delphi survey, of whom 88 completed all three rounds. Twenty-nine outcomes met the a priori criteria for consensus and, along with six additional outcomes, were prioritized in a consensus development meeting, using the modified nominal group technique. Twenty-five stakeholders participated in this meeting, including researchers (n = 3), fetal medicine specialists (n = 3), obstetricians (n = 2), neonatologists (n = 3), midwives (n = 4), parents and family members (n = 6), patient group representatives (n = 3), and a sonographer. Eleven core outcomes were agreed upon. These were live birth, gestational age at birth, birth weight, intertwin birth-weight discordance, death of surviving twin after death of cotwin, loss during pregnancy or before final hospital discharge, parental stress, procedure-related adverse maternal outcome, length of neonatal stay in hospital, neurological abnormality on postnatal imaging and childhood disability.

CONCLUSIONS

This core outcome set for studies investigating the management of sFGR represents the consensus of a large and diverse group of international collaborators. Use of these outcomes in future trials should help to increase the clinical relevance of research on this condition. Consensus agreement on core outcome definitions and measures is now required. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A core outcome set for trials of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity

BACKGROUND

Standardisation of outcomes measured and reported in trials of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity is essential to evaluate and synthesise intervention effects. The aim of this study is to develop an infant-feeding core outcome set for use in randomised trials of infant-feeding interventions, with children ≤1 year old, to prevent childhood obesity.

METHODS

Core outcome set development followed four stages: (1) systematic review of outcomes reported in the extant literature; (2) meeting with national and international stakeholders to discuss and clarify identified outcomes; (3) e-Delphi study with national and international stakeholders to prioritise outcomes; (4) meeting with national and international stakeholders to reach consensus on outcomes. Stakeholders in stages 2-4 were paediatricians, general practitioners, nurses, midwives, non-clinician researchers, parents, dieticians, nutritionists, and childcare providers.

RESULTS

Twenty-six outcomes were identified for inclusion in the core outcome set. These were grouped in nine outcome domains: 'breastfeeding and formula feeding', 'introduction of solids', 'parent feeding practices and styles', 'parent knowledge and beliefs', 'practical feeding', 'food environment', 'dietary intake', 'perceptions of infant behaviour and preferences', and 'child weight'.

CONCLUSIONS

The core outcome set identified in this study is the minimum that should be measured and reported in trials of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity. This standardisation of outcomes will enable more comprehensive examination and synthesis of the effects of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity.

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.

Early versus Delayed Fortification of Human Milk in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review

Expressed breast milk (EBM) is commonly supplemented with commercially prepared human milk fortifier to meet the additional nutritional needs of preterm infants. The optimal milk intake at which to introduce fortification is unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effect of early fortification (EF) versus that of delayed introduction of human milk fortifier (DF) on short-term outcomes including growth, feeding intolerance, length of hospital stay, and maturity at discharge in very-low-birth-weight infants. The search was carried out until March 2019 using 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library). The search was supplemented with a search of the clinical trial registry and reference lists. Eligible studies involved randomized controlled trials that had been designed to compare EF against DF using multi-nutrient fortifier for infants of a birth weight of <1,500 g who were fed exclusively or predominantly EBM. Four authors independently screened the studies for eligibility. A total of 1,972 articles were screened; 2 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included with a total number of participants of 171. The definition of EF and DF was not consistent between the 2 studies. There was no significant impact of EF versus DF on all outcomes. In conclusion, current data are limited and do not provide evidence on the optimal time to start fortification. The definition of EF and DF needs to be agreed upon and further larger randomized controlled trials are required.

Improving the Efficiency and Impact of Clinical Research: A Game Changer for 21st Century Neonatology

Every clinician is aware of the many uncertainties that exist in everyday clinical care. These contribute to variation and inequity in outcomes and pose dangers to patient wellbeing and safety. Evidence generation is still too slow, too expensive, too much left to chance, too ad hoc, and wholly inadequate. Modern technologies can drive faster, more efficient evidence generation and implementation of findings. However, professional and public buy-in are also needed for success; in short, a new conceptual framework aimed at reducing uncertainties effectively, efficiently, and incrementally in clinical practice is required. Currently, much-needed research to reduce practice uncertainties is often never done, or conducted in ways that are inefficient or lack impact. The consequence is poor patient care and abrogation of the cardinal duty of doctors to "first, do no harm." Research is efficient if high quality, conducted rapidly, at reasonable cost, with minimal burden on investigators and participants. Research has impact if outcomes are incorporated into evidence syntheses, and robust conclusions are implemented into practice without delay. Here, I will discuss ways that build upon modern thinking and new technologies to improve the efficiency and impact of clinical research.

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.

Parents' perceptions of core outcomes in neonatal research in two Nigerian neonatal units

BACKGROUND

There is a scarcity of information regarding the most important outcomes for research in neonatal units in low-resource settings. Identification of important outcomes by different stakeholder groups would inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for use in neonatal research.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the perceptions and opinions of parents of newborn babies regarding what outcomes were most important to them in order to contribute towards development of a COS for neonatal research in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were undertaken with parents, mostly mothers, of babies admitted to one neonatal unit in North central and one in Southwest Nigeria. Participants were purposively sampled to include parents of babies with common neonatal problems such as prematurity.

RESULTS

We conducted 31 interviews. The most frequently raised outcomes were breast feeding, good health outcomes for their baby, education, growth and financial cost. Parents placed more emphasis on quality of life and functional status than health complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The opinions of parents need to be considered in developing a COS for neonatal research in low-resource settings. Further research should assess the opinions of families in other low-resource settings and also engage a broader range of stakeholders.

Randomised Controlled Trials for Informing Perinatal Care

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials provide the best evidence for the effects of interventions and are a key tool in the effort to improve the care and outcomes for newborn infants.

METHODS

We discuss the role of randomisation for minimising selection bias in clinical trials and describe examples of seminal trials that have shaped the development of modern perinatal care. We consider the challenges inherent in designing and delivering large, simple, and pragmatic trials, and the need for the development and adoption of core outcome sets to ensure that trials provide high-quality evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to guide policy and practice.

RESULTS

Since the earliest days of modern neonatology, the randomised controlled trial has been recognised as the best method for assessing treatments and practices. While many strategies that reduce mortality and morbidity have been introduced following randomised trials, there are, however, important examples of ineffective or potentially harmful practices that have been adopted in the absence of trial-based evidence. Typically, randomised controlled trials in perinatal care need to recruit several thousand participants to be able to detect modest but potentially important effects of new interventions on the most important but rare outcomes. Given the concerns about the financial burden and regulatory complexity of standard trial designs, innovative "efficient" trial designs are being evaluated to streamline processes while safeguarding participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-conducted randomised controlled trials provide the most robust evaluation of interventions aimed at improving outcomes for newborn infants and their families. Increasingly, these trials will need to be large and multicentre (often international) and use a simple and pragmatic protocol, incorporating meticulous follow-up procedures and assessment of long-term outcomes.

A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data

Background

We aimed to test whether a common set of key data items reported across high-impact neonatal clinical trials could be identified, and to quantify their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom neonatal data held in the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD).

Methods

We systematically reviewed neonatal clinical trials published in four high-impact medical journals over 10 years (2006–2015) and extracted baseline characteristics, stratification items and potential confounders used to adjust primary outcomes. Completeness was examined using data held in the NNRD for identified data items, for infants admitted to neonatal units in 2015. The NNRD is a repository of routinely recorded data extracted from neonatal Electronic Patient Records (EPR) of all admissions to National Health Service (NHS) Neonatal Units in England, Wales and Scotland. We defined missing data as an empty field or an implausible value. We reported common data items as frequencies and percentages alongside percentages of completeness.

Results

We identified 44 studies involving 32,095 infants and 126 data items. Fourteen data items were reported by more than 20% of studies. Gestational age (95%), sex (93%) and birth weight (91%) were the most common baseline data items. The completeness of data in the NNRD was high for these data with greater than 90% completeness found for 9 of the 14 most common items.

Conclusion

High-impact neonatal clinical trials share common data items. In the United Kingdom, these items can be obtained at a high level of completeness from routinely recorded data held in the NNRD. The feasibility and efficiency using routinely recorded EPR data, such as that held in the NNRD, for clinical trials, rather than collecting these items anew, should be examined.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number CRD42016046138. Registered prospectively on 17 August 2016.

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.

Establishing a neonatal database in a tertiary hospital in Rwanda - an observational study

Background: Monitoring and evaluation is vital in the quest to improve the quality of care and to reduce the morbidity and mortality of neonates in a resource-limited setting. Databases offer several advantages such as data on large cohorts of neonates and from multiple centres. Aim: To establish a minimal dataset neonatal database in Kigali, Rwanda and to assess the quality and timing of the data entry process. Secondary objectives were to describe survival rates and associated risk factors. Methods: A cross-sectional, observational study was undertaken at a tertiary hospital in Kigali, Rwanda. The Rwanda Neonatal Data Collection Form was designed specifically for the database, based on the Vermont-Oxford Network neonatal data-collection tool with locally relevant amendments. All admitted neonates were enrolled during the study period of 2011-2017 with ongoing data-collection. Infants were recruited and data collected prospectively and cross-checked retrospectively with the inclusion of basic data on neonates who were not initially recruited prospectively. Results: 3391 analysable cases were recruited: 1420 prospective and 1971 retrospective cases. Prospective data collection peaked at 90%. Data entry was not always complete with data-points left blank with only 21% having adequate data available (0-25% missing). All-cause mortality during the study period was 16% and annual mortality ranged from 12% to 24%. On multivariate analysis, place of birth (AOR 2.17), small-for-gestational-age (AOR 2.05) and gestational age were all positively associated with survival. Conclusions: An academic setting in a low- or middle-income country can create and maintain a neonatal database without funding and produce a wealth of actionable results. Throughout the process, there were considerable challenges which must be addressed if such a database is to be optimised, maintained and created in other clinical sites. Abbreviations: CHUK: Centre Hospitalier et Universitaire de Kigali (University Teaching Hospital of Kigali); CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; HCP: Healthcare professional; HRH, Human Resources for Health Programme; LMIC: low- and middle-income countries; MeSH: Medical subject headings; MoH: Ministry of Health; NAR: Newborn admission record; QI: Quality improvement; REDCap: Research electronic data capture; RNDB: Rwanda neonatal database; RNDCF: Rwanda neonatal data collecion form; SGA: Small for gestational age; STROBE: Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology; VON: The Vermont-Oxford Network.

The WHEAT pilot trial-WithHolding Enteral feeds Around packed red cell Transfusion to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in preterm neonates: a multicentre, electronic patient record (EPR), randomised controlled point-of-care pilot trial

INTRODUCTION

Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is a potentially devastating neonatal disease. A temporal association between red cell transfusion and NEC is well described. Observational data suggest that withholding enteral feeds around red cell transfusions may reduce the risk of NEC but this has not been tested in randomised trials; current UK practice varies. Prevention of NEC is a research priority but no appropriately powered trials have addressed this question. The use of a simplified opt-out consent model and embedding trial processes within existing electronic patient record (EPR) systems provide opportunities to increase trial efficiency and recruitment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will undertake a randomised, controlled, multicentre, unblinded, pilot trial comparing two care pathways: continuing milk feeds (before, during and after red cell transfusions) and withholding milk feeds (for 4 hours before, during and for 4 hours after red cell transfusions), with infants randomly assigned with equal probability. We will use opt-out consent. A nested qualitative study will explore parent and health professional views. Infants will be eligible if born at <30+0 gestational weeks+days. Primary feasibility outcomes will be rate of recruitment, opt-out, retention, compliance, data completeness and data accuracy; clinical outcomes will include mortality and NEC. The trial will recruit in two neonatal networks in England for 9 months. Data collection will continue until all infants have reached 40+0 corrected gestational weeks or neonatal discharge. Participant identification and recruitment, randomisation and all trial data collection will be embedded within existing neonatal EPR systems (BadgerNet and BadgerEPR); outcome data will be extracted from routinely recorded data held in the National Neonatal Research Database.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study holds Research Ethics Committee approval to use an opt-out approach to consent. Results will inform future EPR-embedded and data-enabled trials and will be disseminated through conferences, publications and parent-centred information.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN62501859; Pre-results.

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.

Outcomes following early parenteral nutrition use in preterm neonates: protocol for an observational study

INTRODUCTION

Preterm babies are among the highest users of parenteral nutrition (PN) of any patient group, but there is wide variation in commencement, duration, and composition of PN and uncertainty around which groups will benefit from early introduction. Recent studies in critically unwell adults and children suggest that harms, specifically increased rates of nosocomial infection, outweigh the benefits of early administration of PN. In this study, we will describe early PN use in neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland. We will also evaluate if this is associated with differences in important neonatal outcomes in neonates born between 30⁺⁰ and 32⁺⁶ weeks^+days gestation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use routinely collected data from all neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland, available in the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD). We will describe clinical practice in relation to any use of PN during the first 7 postnatal days among neonates admitted to neonatal care between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2017. We will compare outcomes in neonates born between 30⁺⁰ and 32⁺⁶ weeks^+days gestation who did or did not receive PN in the first week after birth using a propensity score-matched approach. The primary outcome will be survival to discharge home. Secondary outcomes will include components of the neonatal core outcome set: outcomes identified as important by former patients, parents, clinicians and researchers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We have obtained UK National Research Ethics Committee approval for this study (Ref: 18/NI/0214). The results of this study will be presented at academic conferences; the UK charity Bliss will aid dissemination to former patients and parents.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03767634.

Challenges in Advancing Necrotizing Enterocolitis Research

Progressing necrotizing enterocolitis research is difficult because the disease is variable in presentation, there are difficulties in making a precise diagnosis, a reliable agreed case-definition is currently lacking, and there is a paucity of preclinical research to identify etiologic targets. The major challenges of the cost of clinical trials and need for long-term outcome ascertainment could be eased through incorporation of novel randomization approaches and data collection into routine care, and collaboration between public-sector and industry funders.

Adverse perinatal outcomes are associated with severe maternal morbidity and mortality: evidence from a national multicentre cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

To assess the association between maternal potentially life-threatening conditions (PLTC), maternal near miss (MNM), and maternal death (MD) with perinatal outcomes.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study in 27 Brazilian referral centers from July, 2009 to June, 2010. All women presenting any criteria for PLTC and MNM, or MD, were included. Sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics were evaluated in each group of maternal outcomes. Childbirth and maternal morbidity data were related to perinatal adverse outcomes (5th min Apgar score < 7, fetal death, neonatal death, or any of these). The Chi-squared test evaluated the differences between groups. Multiple regression analysis adjusted for the clustering design effect identified the independently associated maternal factors with the adverse perinatal outcomes (prevalence ratios; 95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

Among 8271 cases of severe maternal morbidity, there were 714 cases of adverse perinatal outcomes. Advanced maternal age, low level of schooling, multiparity, lack of prenatal care, delays in care, preterm birth, and adverse perinatal outcomes were more common among MNM and MD. Both MNM and MD were associated with Apgar score (2.39; 1.68-3.39); maternal hemorrhage was the most prevalent characteristic associated with fetal death (2.9, 95% CI 1.81-4.66) and any adverse perinatal outcome (2.16; 1.59-2.94); while clinical/surgical conditions were more related to neonatal death (1.56; 1.08-2.25).

CONCLUSION

We confirmed the association between MNM and MD with adverse perinatal outcomes. Maternal and perinatal issues should not be dissociated. Policies aiming maternal care should include social and economic development, and improvements in accessibility to specialized care. These, in turn, will definitively impact on childhood mortality rates.