Inconsistent outcome reporting in large neonatal trials: a systematic review

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research.

Taking a chance on outcome standardisation: A cross-sectional analysis assessing the uptake of the prevention of preterm birth core outcome set in randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Analyse uptake of the core outcome set (COS) within preterm birth (PTB) clinical trials.

DESIGN

On 26 June 2023, we conducted a systematic search of phase III/IV trial registry entries regarding PTB interventions via ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. These trials were analysed for the outcomes measured.

SETTING

N/A.

SAMPLE

After searching the two databases, 5257 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were screened, resulting in 92 RCTs for analysis.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were the following: subjects were patients receiving an intervention for PTB, study enrolment began within 5 years prior to publication of PTB COS to 26 June 2023, and evaluated the efficacy of interventions. Authors screened and extracted data in masked, duplicate fashion, then performed an interrupted time series analysis, analysis of variance and correlation analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We extracted outcomes measured by each clinical trial in our sample. Trials were analysed for the percentage of adopted outcomes from PTB COS.

RESULTS

After COS publication, there was no significant change in percentage of COS outcomes measured. The most measured outcome was 'offspring mortality' (54.34%, 50/92) and the least measured outcome was 'late neonatal neurodevelopment morbidity' (3.26%, 3/92). Additionally, 22.83% (21/92) of trials measured zero outcomes related to the PTB COS.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated no significant change in outcome measurement before or after PTB COS publication. We recommend focusing on both the measurement of outcomes and the assessments that are used.

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.

Strengthening Reporting of Neonatal Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is variability in the selection and reporting of outcomes in neonatal trials with key information frequently omitted. This can impact applicability of trial findings to clinicians, families, and caregivers, and impair evidence synthesis. The Neonatal Core Outcomes Set describes outcomes agreed as clinically important that should be assessed in all neonatal trials, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Outcomes 2022 is a new, harmonized, evidence-based reporting guideline for trial outcomes. We reviewed published trials using CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidance to identify exemplars of neonatal core outcome reporting to strengthen description of outcomes in future trial publications.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports.

RESULTS

Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.

Ranking Future Outcomes Most Important to Parents of Children with Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia

OBJECTIVE

To assess which potential future outcomes are most important to parents of children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a disease that affects future respiratory, medical, and developmental outcomes for children born preterm.

STUDY DESIGN

We recruited parents from 2 children's hospitals' neonatal follow-up clinics and elicited their importance rating for 20 different potential future outcomes associated with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. These outcomes were identified and selected through a literature review and discussions with panels of parents and clinician stakeholders, via a discrete choice experiment.

RESULTS

One hundred and 5 parents participated. Overall, parents ranked "Will my child be more vulnerable to other problems because of having lung disease?" as the most important outcome, with other respiratory health related outcomes also highly ranked. Outcomes related to child development and effects on the family were among the lowest ranked. Individually, parents rated outcomes differently, resulting in a broad distribution of importance scores for many of the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rankings suggest that parents prioritize future outcomes related to physical health and safety. Notably, for guiding research, some top-rated outcomes are not traditionally measured in outcome studies. For guiding individual counseling, the broad distribution of importance scores for many outcomes highlights the extent to which parents differ in their prioritization of outcomes.

Association between birth location and short-term outcomes for babies with gastroschisis, congenital diaphragmatic hernia and oesophageal fistula: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Neonatal care is commonly regionalised, meaning specialist services are only available at certain units. Consequently, infants with surgical conditions needing specialist care who are born in non-surgical centres require postnatal transfer. Best practice models advocate for colocated maternity and surgical services as the place of birth for infants with antenatally diagnosed congenital conditions to avoid postnatal transfers. We conducted a systematic review to explore the association between location of birth and short-term outcomes of babies with gastroschisis, congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) and oesophageal atresia with or without tracheo-oesophageal fistula (TOF/OA).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases for studies from high income countries comparing outcomes for infants with gastroschisis, CDH or TOF/OA based on their place of delivery. Outcomes of interest included mortality, length of stay, age at first feed, comorbidities and duration of parenteral nutrition. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We present a narrative synthesis of our findings.

RESULTS

Nineteen cohort studies compared outcomes of babies with one of gastroschisis, CDH or TOF/OA. Heterogeneity across the studies precluded meta-analysis. Eight studies carried out case-mix adjustments. Overall, we found conflicting evidence. There is limited evidence to suggest that birth in a maternity unit with a colocated surgical centre was associated with a reduction in mortality for CDH and decreased length of stay for gastroschisis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence to suggest that delivery in colocated maternity-surgical services may be associated with shortened length of stay and reduced mortality. Our findings are limited by significant heterogeneity, potential for bias and paucity of strong evidence. This supports the need for further research to investigate the impact of birth location on outcomes for babies with congenital surgical conditions and inform future design of neonatal care systems.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022329090.

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.

Preterm Brain Injury and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes: A Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Preterm brain injuries are common; neurodevelopmental outcomes following contemporary neonatal care are continually evolving.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and meta-analyze neurodevelopmental outcomes among preterm infants after intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and white matter injury (WMI).

DATA SOURCES

Published and grey literature were searched across 10 databases between 2000 and 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Observational studies reporting 3-year neurodevelopmental outcomes for preterm infants with IVH or WMI compared with preterm infants without injury.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics, population characteristics, and outcome data were extracted.

RESULTS

Thirty eight studies were included. There was an increased adjusted risk of moderate-severe neurodevelopmental impairment after IVH grade 1 to 2 (adjusted odds ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75]) and IVH grade 3 to 4 (adjusted odds ratio 4.26 [3.25-5.59]). Children with IVH grade 1 to 2 had higher risks of cerebral palsy (odds ratio [OR] 1.76 [1.39-2.24]), cognitive (OR 1.79 [1.09-2.95]), hearing (OR 1.83 [1.03-3.24]), and visual impairment (OR 1.77 [1.08-2.9]). Children with IVH grade 3 to 4 had markedly higher risks of cerebral palsy (OR 4.98 [4.13-6.00]), motor (OR 2.7 [1.52-4.8]), cognitive (OR 2.3 [1.67-3.15]), hearing (OR 2.44 [1.42-4.2]), and visual impairment (OR 5.42 [2.77-10.58]). Children with WMI had much higher risks of cerebral palsy (OR 14.91 [7.3-30.46]), motor (OR 5.3 [3-9.36]), and cognitive impairment (OR 3.48 [2.18-5.53]).

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of outcome data.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild IVH, severe IVH, and WMI are associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Utilization of core outcome sets and availability of open-access study data would improve our understanding of the nuances of these outcomes.

Outcomes reported in trials of treatments for severe malaria: The need for a core outcome set

OBJECTIVES

Malaria is one of the most important parasitic infectious diseases worldwide. Despite the scale-up of effective antimalarials, mortality rates from severe malaria (SM) remain significantly high; thus, numerous trials are investigating both antimalarials and adjunctive therapy. This review aimed to summarise all the outcome measures used in trials in the last 10 years to see the need for a core outcome set.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to summarise outcomes of individually randomised trials assessing treatments for SM in adults and children. We searched key databases and trial registries between 1 January 2010 and 30 July 2020. Non-randomised trials were excluded to allow comparison of similar trials. Trial characteristics including phase, region, population, interventions, were summarised. All primary and secondary outcomes were extracted and categorised using a taxonomy table.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven of 282 screened trials met our inclusion criteria, including 10,342 patients from 19 countries: 19 (70%) trials from Africa and 8 (30%) from Asia. A large amount of heterogeneity was observed in the selection of outcomes and instruments, with 101 different outcomes measures recorded, 78/101 reported only in a single trial. Parasitological outcomes (17 studies), neurological status (14 studies), death (14 studies) and temperature (10 studies), were the most reported outcomes. Where an outcome was reported in >1 study it was often measured differently: temperature (4 different measures), renal function (7 measures), nervous system (13 measures) and parasitology (10 measures).

CONCLUSION

Outcomes used in SM trials are inconsistent and heterogeneous. Absence of consensus for outcome measures used impedes research synthesis and comparability of different interventions. This systematic review demonstrates the need to develop a standardised collection of core outcomes for clinical trials of treatments for SM and next steps to include the development of a panel of experts in the field, a Delphi process, and a consensus meeting.

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews' findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline.

METHODS

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process.

DISCUSSION

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Heterogeneity of outcomes for intraoperative music interventions: a scoping review and evidence map

BACKGROUND

Over the past 30 years, numerous studies have been performed that assess the efficacy of intraoperative music as an adjunctive means to regional and local anaesthesia to improve clinical outcomes. Despite an emerging body of evidence and growing adoption of music in surgical settings, the variety of interventions studied, and the heterogeneity of outcomes and outcome measurement tools applied makes difficult the task of aggregating evidence.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the state of the field of intraoperative musical interventions by documenting and visualising the breadth of outcomes measured in studies.

DESIGN

Scoping review and evidence map.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and a music-focussed research database, RILM (International Music Literature Repository)) were searched for full-text articles published between January 1991 and July 2019. Results from these searches were screened and relevant data was extracted from full-text articles on type of music intervention and type of anaesthesia; outcomes measured were recorded in an evidence map in order to identify the current state of the field and assess for trends in outcome measurements.

INTERVENTIONS

Music administered to adult patients via headphones or speakers under regional or local sedation in during the intraoperative period.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies with a total of 2283 patients were included. A total of 42 unique outcomes were measured across the 21 studies, with each measuring an average of 6.41±2.63 outcomes. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, anxiety, pain, patient satisfaction, respiratory rate and sedation requirements were the most prevalent outcomes reported. Only 15 outcome measures (36%) were used in more than one study, while the remaining 27 outcome measures (64%) were identified in only one study in our review.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review identifies that almost two-thirds of studies in this field used >1 outcome measure unique to that study (not also used in other studies), which hinders opportunities to aggregate data across studies and meta-analyse evidence. Future studies should provide clear documentation regarding the intervention and consider using valid and reliable outcome tools. Researchers should consider standardisation when appropriate and adopting the use of core outcome sets for conditions where these sets have been developed.

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.

Optimizing practice guidelines through incorporating patient and family values and preferences

Neonatal care largely follows clinical practice guidelines and position statements developed locally by respective institutions as well as by national and international organizations. One might expect that adoption of clinical guidelines based on best available research evidence would make neonatal care practices mostly uniform. However, wide variation in clinical practice is still noted in neonatal care. Neonatal clinical guidelines are developed almost exclusively by healthcare professionals, with little or no input from families of the infants being cared for. Therefore, such variation in practice may stem not only from how the evidence is interpreted but also how caregivers and families value different outcomes that are affected by particular interventions. Acknowledging and incorporating the variability in patient and family values and preferences in clinical guidelines is an important step towards allowing shared decision making while reducing unwarranted practice variation, and thereby helping clinicians practice family-centered evidence-based medicine.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

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

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia.

DESIGN

Consensus development study.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

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

METHODS

Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique.

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

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

Neurodevelopmental outcome descriptions in cohorts of extremely preterm children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Caregivers and clinicians of extremely preterm infants (born before 26 weeks' gestation) depend on long-term follow-up research to inform clinical decision-making. The completeness of outcome reporting in this area is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting of outcome definitions, selection, measurement and analysis in existing cohort studies that report on neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born extremely preterm.

METHODS

We evaluated the completeness of reporting of 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' in prospective cohort studies summarised in a meta-analysis that assessed the effect of preterm birth on school-age neurodevelopment. Outcome reporting was evaluated using a checklist of 55 items addressing outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, presentation and interpretation. Reporting frequencies were calculated to identify strengths and deficiencies in outcome descriptions.

RESULTS

All 14 included studies reported 'cognitive function' as an outcome; nine reported both 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' as outcomes. Studies reported between 26% and 46% of the 55 outcome reporting items assessed; results were similar for 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' (on average 34% and 33% of items reported, respectively). Key methodological concepts often omitted included the reporting of masking of outcome assessors, methods used to handle missing data and stakeholder involvement in outcome selection.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of neurodevelopmental outcomes in cohort studies of infants born extremely preterm is variable and often incomplete. This may affect stakeholders' interpretation of study results, impair knowledge synthesis efforts and limit evidence-based decision-making for this population.

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.

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.

How Often Are Patient-Important Outcomes Represented in Neonatal Randomized Controlled Trials? An Analysis of Cochrane Neonatal Reviews

BACKGROUND

Research findings based on patient-important outcomes (PIOs) provide more useful conclusions than those that are based on surrogate outcomes. It is unclear to what extent PIOs are represented in neonatal randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews.

METHODS

We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management.

RESULTS

Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year).

CONCLUSIONS

The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.

Interventions to improve quantitative measures of parent satisfaction in neonatal care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Interventions improving parent satisfaction can reduce parent stress, may improve parent-infant bonding and infant outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review neonatal interventions relating to parents of infants of all gestations where an outcome was parent satisfaction.

METHODS

We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, HMIC, Maternity and Infant Care between 1 January 1946 and 1 October 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials (RCT), cohort studies and other non-randomised studies if participants were parents of infants receiving neonatal care, interventions were implemented in neonatal units (of any care level) and ≥1 quantitative outcome of parent satisfaction was measured. Included studies were limited to the English language only. We extracted study characteristics, interventions, outcomes and parent involvement in intervention design. Included studies were not sufficiently homogenous to enable quantitative synthesis. We assessed quality with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (randomised) and the ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) (non-randomised studies).

RESULTS

We identified 32 studies with satisfaction measures from over 2800 parents and grouped interventions into 5 themes. Most studies were non-randomised involving preterm infants. Parent satisfaction was measured by 334 different questions in 29 questionnaires (only 6/29 fully validated). 18/32 studies reported higher parent satisfaction in the intervention group. The intervention theme with most studies reporting higher satisfaction was parent involvement (10/14). Five (5/32) studies reported involving parents in intervention design. All studies had high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Many interventions, commonly relating to parent involvement, are reported to improve parent satisfaction. Inconsistency in satisfaction measurements and high risk of bias makes this low-quality evidence. Standardised, validated parent satisfaction measures are needed, as well as higher quality trials of parent experience involving parents in intervention design.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017072388.