E Rogozinska1,2, M I D'Amico1, K S Khan1,2, J G Cecatti3, H Teede4, S Yeo5, C A Vinter6,7, G Rayanagoudar1, R Barakat8, M Perales8, J M Dodd9, R Devlieger10, A Bogaerts10, M N M van Poppel11, L Haakstad12, G X Shen13, A Shub14, R Luoto15, T I Kinnunen16, S Phelan17, L Poston18, T T Scudeller19, N El Beltagy20, S N Stafne21,22, S Tonstad23, N R W Geiker24, A E Ruifrok25,26, B W Mol27, A Coomarasamy28, S Thangaratinam1,2. 1. Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University London, London, UK. 2. Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry Queen Mary University London, London, UK. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 5. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 6. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Department of Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 7. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 8. Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fısica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 9. Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 10. Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg, Hasselt and University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 11. Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 12. Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Department of Sports Medicine, Oslo, Norway. 13. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 14. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 15. UKK Institute for Health Promotion Research, Tampere, Finland. 16. School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. 17. Kinesiology Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA. 18. Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. 19. Department of Health Sciences, Physical Therapy Course, S'o Paulo Federal University/Unifesp, Santos, Brazil. 20. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. 21. Department of Public Health and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 22. Clinical Services, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 23. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 24. Nutritional Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Denmark. 25. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 26. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 27. Robinson Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Australia. 28. School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop maternal, fetal, and neonatal composite outcomes relevant to the evaluation of diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy by individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. DESIGN: Delphi survey. SETTING: The International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) collaborative network. Sample Twenty-six researchers from the i-WIP collaborative network from 11 countries. METHODS: A two-generational Delphi survey involving members of the i-WIP collaborative network (26 members in 11 countries) was undertaken to prioritise the individual outcomes for their importance in clinical care. The final components of the composite outcomes were identified using pre-specified criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Composite outcomes considered to be important for the evaluation of the effect of diet and lifestyle in pregnancy. RESULTS: Of the 36 maternal outcomes, nine were prioritised and the following were included in the final composite: pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), elective or emergency caesarean section, and preterm delivery. Of the 27 fetal and neonatal outcomes, nine were further evaluated, with the final composite consisting of intrauterine death, small for gestational age, large for gestational age, and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). CONCLUSIONS: Our work has identified the components of maternal, fetal, and neonatal composite outcomes required for the assessment of diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy by IPD meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To develop maternal, fetal, and neonatal composite outcomes relevant to the evaluation of diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy by individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. DESIGN: Delphi survey. SETTING: The International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) collaborative network. Sample Twenty-six researchers from the i-WIP collaborative network from 11 countries. METHODS: A two-generational Delphi survey involving members of the i-WIP collaborative network (26 members in 11 countries) was undertaken to prioritise the individual outcomes for their importance in clinical care. The final components of the composite outcomes were identified using pre-specified criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Composite outcomes considered to be important for the evaluation of the effect of diet and lifestyle in pregnancy. RESULTS: Of the 36 maternal outcomes, nine were prioritised and the following were included in the final composite: pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), elective or emergency caesarean section, and preterm delivery. Of the 27 fetal and neonatal outcomes, nine were further evaluated, with the final composite consisting of intrauterine death, small for gestational age, large for gestational age, and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). CONCLUSIONS: Our work has identified the components of maternal, fetal, and neonatal composite outcomes required for the assessment of diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy by IPD meta-analysis.
Authors: Bassel H Al Wattar; Julie Dodds; Anna Placzek; Eleni Spyreli; Amanda Moore; Richard Hooper; Lee Beresford; Tessa J Roseboom; Maira Bes-Rastrollo; Graham Hitman; Khalid S Khan; Shakila Thangaratinam Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Abera K Tura; Jelle Stekelenburg; Sicco A Scherjon; Joost Zwart; Thomas van den Akker; Jos van Roosmalen; Sanne J Gordijn Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Dyuti Coomar; Jonathan M Hazlehurst; Frances Austin; Charlie Foster; Graham A Hitman; Nicola Heslehurst; Stamatina Iliodromiti; Ana Pilar Betran; Ngawai Moss; Lucilla Poston; Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar; Tracy Roberts; Sharon A Simpson; Helena J Teede; Richard Riley; John Allotey; Shakila Thangaratinam Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Lisa M Bodnar; Dmitry Khodyakov; Sara M Parisi; Katherine P Himes; Jessica G Burke; Jennifer A Hutcheon Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 3.103