Core outcome set for perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION

Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.

STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. 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. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. 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. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. 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 present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡

STUDY QUESTION

Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. 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.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. 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. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. 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 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 present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

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.

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.

Don’t abandon RCTs in IVF. We don’t even understand them

The conclusion of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that ‘add-on’ therapies in IVF are not supported by high-quality evidence has prompted new questions regarding the role of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) in evaluating infertility treatments. Critics argue that trials are cumbersome tools that provide irrelevant answers. Instead, they argue that greater emphasis should be placed on large observational databases, which can be analysed using powerful algorithms to determine which treatments work and for whom. Although the validity of these arguments rests upon the sciences of statistics and epidemiology, the discussion to date has largely been conducted without reference to these fields. We aim to remedy this omission, by evaluating the arguments against RCTs in IVF from a primarily methodological perspective. We suggest that, while criticism of the status quo is warranted, a retreat from RCTs is more likely to make things worse for patients and clinicians.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

STUDY QUESTIONS

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

Educational effectiveness of gynaecological teaching associates: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, among medical students learning the female pelvic examination, the added benefits of training by gynaecological teaching associates compared with training involving a manikin only.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Nine university teaching hospitals.

POPULATION

Ninety-four medical students recruited prior to commencing a 4-week obstetrics and gynaecology rotation.

METHODS

The control training consisted of lectures, demonstration of the pelvic examination on a manikin, and opportunities to practise on this low-fidelity simulation (n = 40). The experimental group received additional gynaecological teaching associate training, delivered by pairs of experienced associates to groups of four medical students (n = 54).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes measured at the end of the rotation included knowledge of the correct order of examination components (Yes/No), and student comfort [Likert scales anchored between 1 (very uncomfortable) and 4 (very comfortable) on four items] and confidence [Likert scales anchored between 1 (No) and 3 (Yes) on six items]. The primary outcome, measured at the end of the academic year, was the objective structured clinical examination of a female pelvis (score range 0-54).

RESULTS

At baseline, the groups were similar in age, gender, and ethnicity. At the end of the clinical rotation, when compared with the control intervention, the experimental intervention had a moderate effect on student knowledge [difference 29.9% (95% CI 11.2-48.6%); P = 0.002] and confidence [difference 1 (95% CI 0-2); P < 0.001], and a large effect on student comfort [difference 1.8 (95% CI 0.6-3.0); P = 0.004]. At the end of the academic year, the experimental intervention had no impact on skills compared with the control [difference 2 (95% CI-1 to 4); P = 0.26].

CONCLUSIONS

Among medical students taught the female pelvic examination by low-fidelity simulation, additional training by gynaecology teaching associates improved knowledge, comfort, and confidence at the end of the clinical rotation but did not improve examination skills at end of the academic year.

Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery

BACKGROUND

Pelvic adhesion can form as a result of inflammation, endometriosis or surgical trauma. During pelvic surgery, strategies to reduce pelvic adhesion formation may include placing synthetic barrier agents such as oxidised regenerated cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene or Fibrin sheets between the pelvic structures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of physical barriers used during pelvic surgery in women of reproductive age on pregnancy rates, pelvic pain, or postoperative adhesion reformation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched September 2007) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CENTRAL, plus handsearching of 20 relevant journals and conference proceedings, and searches of several key grey literature sources. In addition, companies were contacted for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of physical barriers versus no treatment or other physical barriers in the prevention of adhesions in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors assessed trial eligibility and quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included. Five trials randomised patients while the remainder randomised pelvic organs. Laparoscopy (six trials) and laparotomy (10 trials) were the primary surgical techniques. Indications for surgery included myomectomy (five trials), ovarian surgery (five trials), pelvic adhesions (four trials), endometriosis (one trial), and mixed (one trial). Eleven trials assessed Interceed versus no treatment, two assessed Interceed versus Gore-Tex, one trial assessed Gore-Tex versus no treatment, and one trial assessed Seprafilm versus no treatment. A single trial assessed Fibrin sheet versus no treatment. No studies reported pregnancy or reduction in pain as outcomes. The use of Interceed was associated with reduced incidence of pelvic adhesion formation, both new formation and reformation following laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. However, this result should be interpreted with caution. Gore-Tex was more effective than no barrier or Interceed in preventing adhesion formation. There was only limited evidence that Seprafilm was effective in preventing adhesion formation following myomectomy and no evidence to support Fibrin sheet.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The absorbable adhesion barrier Interceed reduces the incidence of adhesion formation following laparoscopy and laparotomy, but there are insufficient data to support its use to improve pregnancy rates. Gore-Tex may be superior to Interceed in preventing adhesion formation but its usefulness is limited by the need for suturing and later removal. There was no evidence of effectiveness of Seprafilm and Fibrin sheet in preventing adhesion formation.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a very common procedure in gynaecology. Complications associated with laparoscopy are often related to entry. The life-threatening complications include injury to the bowel, bladder, major abdominal vessels, and anterior abdominal-wall vessel. Other less serious complications can also occur, such as post-operative infection, subcutaneous emphysema and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the different laparoscopic entry techniques in terms of their influence on intra-operative and post-operative complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through to July, 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included when one laparoscopic primary-port-entry technique was compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by the first two authors. Differences of opinion were registered and resolved by the fourth author. Results for each study were expressed as odds ratio (Peto version) with their 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

The 17 included randomised controlled trials concerned 3,040 individuals undergoing laparoscopy. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique in terms of preventing major complications. However, there were two advantages with direct-trocar entry when compared with Veress-Needle entry, in terms of avoiding extraperitoneal insufflation (OR 0.06, 95%CI 0.02, 0.23) and failed entry (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.08, 0.56). There was also an advantage with radially expanding access system (STEP) trocar entry when compared with standard trocar entry, in terms of trocar site bleeding (OR 0.06, 95%CI 0.01, 0.46). Finally, there was an advantage of not lifting the abdominal wall before Veress-Needle insertion when compared to lifting in terms of failed entry without an increase in the complication rate (OR 5.17, 95%CI 2.24, 11.90). However, studies were limited to small numbers, excluding many patients with previous abdominal surgery and women with a raised body mass index, who often had unusually high complication rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of evidence investigated in this review, there appears to be no evidence of benefit in terms of safety of one technique over another. However, the included studies are small and cannot be used to confirm safety of any particular technique.

Laparoscopic entry techniques and complications

OBJECTIVE

To identify laparoscopic entry techniques employed by gynecologists in the United Kingdom to determine if the consensus technique is adhered to, and to observe whether entry technique affects complication rate.

METHOD

An anonymous postal questionnaire was sent to gynecologists with an interest in laparoscopic surgery in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

At total of 568 questionnaires were sent and 345 (60.7%) were returned. Of gynecologists who returned the questionnaire 194 (57%) reported occurrence of a major bowel or vascular complication. In terms of the key elements of the consensus document there was no significant difference in entry technique used between those that reported major injury (vascular, bowel, or both), and those that did not.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrates the variation in entry techniques used by gynecologists in the United Kingdom. Without a good evidence-base to the contrary no entry technique can be stated as safer than another.