James M N Duffy1,2, Martin Hirsch3,4, Chris Gale5, Louise Pealing1, Anusuya Kawsar4, Marian Showell6, Paula R Williamson7, Khalid S Khan3, Sue Ziebland1, Richard J McManus1. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Balliol College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Women's Health Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 4. Royal Free London NHS Trust, London, UK. 5. Neonatal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 6. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 7. MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An evaluation of outcome reporting is required to develop a core outcome set. OBJECTIVES: To assess primary outcomes and outcome measure reporting in pre-eclampsia trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five online databases were searched from inception to January 2016 using terms including "preeclampsia" and "randomized controlled trial". SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for pre-eclampsia published in any language were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes and data on outcome measure reporting were systematically extracted and categorized. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 79 randomized trials including data from 31 615 women were included. Of those, 38 (48%) reported 35 different primary outcomes; 28 were maternal outcomes and seven were fetal/neonatal outcomes. Three randomized trials reported composite outcomes, incorporating between six and nine outcome components. The method of definition or measurement was infrequently or poorly reported. Even when outcomes were consistent across trials, different methods of definition or measurement were frequently described. CONCLUSIONS: In randomized trials evaluating interventions for pre-eclampsia, critical information related to the primary outcome, including definition and measurement, is regularly omitted. Developing a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia trials would help to inform primary outcome selection and outcome measure reporting.
BACKGROUND: An evaluation of outcome reporting is required to develop a core outcome set. OBJECTIVES: To assess primary outcomes and outcome measure reporting in pre-eclampsia trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five online databases were searched from inception to January 2016 using terms including "preeclampsia" and "randomized controlled trial". SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for pre-eclampsia published in any language were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes and data on outcome measure reporting were systematically extracted and categorized. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 79 randomized trials including data from 31 615 women were included. Of those, 38 (48%) reported 35 different primary outcomes; 28 were maternal outcomes and seven were fetal/neonatal outcomes. Three randomized trials reported composite outcomes, incorporating between six and nine outcome components. The method of definition or measurement was infrequently or poorly reported. Even when outcomes were consistent across trials, different methods of definition or measurement were frequently described. CONCLUSIONS: In randomized trials evaluating interventions for pre-eclampsia, critical information related to the primary outcome, including definition and measurement, is regularly omitted. Developing a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia trials would help to inform primary outcome selection and outcome measure reporting.
Authors: J M N Duffy; S Bhattacharya; C Curtis; J L H Evers; R G Farquharson; S Franik; Y Khalaf; R S Legro; S Lensen; B W Mol; C Niederberger; E H Y Ng; S Repping; A Strandell; H L Torrance; A Vail; M van Wely; N L Vuong; A Y Wang; R Wang; J Wilkinson; M A Youssef; C M Farquhar Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2018-06-15
Authors: Michael P Rimmer; Ruth A Howie; Venkatesh Subramanian; Richard A Anderson; Ricardo Pimenta Bertolla; Yusuf Beebeejaun; Pietro Bortoletto; Sesh K Sunkara; Rod T Mitchell; Allan Pacey; Madelon van Wely; Cindy M Farquhar; James M N Duffy; Craig Niederberger Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Constantin M Durnea; Vasilios Pergialiotis; James M N Duffy; Lina Bergstrom; Abdullatif Elfituri; Stergios K Doumouchtsis Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 2.894