Jmn Duffy1,2, M Hirsch2, S Ziebland1, R J McManus1. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effect of different methodological decisions on the identification of potential core outcomes to inform the development of recommendations for future core coutcome set developers. DESIGN: Mixed methods study. SETTING: A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia was used as an exemplar. SAMPLE: A long list of potential core outcomes was developed by undertaking a systematic review of pre-eclampsia trials and performing a thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews. METHODS: Specific methods used to generate long lists of potential core outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Different methodological decisions had a substantial impact on the identification of potential core outcomes. Extracting outcomes from published pre-eclampsia trials was an effective way of identifying 48 maternal, eight fetal, 25 neonatal outcomes, and eight patient-reported outcomes. Limiting the extraction of outcomes to primary outcomes or outcomes commonly reported in pre-eclampsia trials reduced the number and diversity of potential core outcomes identified. Thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews ensured an additional five patient reported outcomes and six outcomes related to future child health were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Future core outcome set developers should use quantitative and qualitative methods when developing a long list of potential core outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @OfficialNIHR research published in @BJOGtweets informs new recommendations for future @coreoutcomes developers.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effect of different methodological decisions on the identification of potential core outcomes to inform the development of recommendations for future core coutcome set developers. DESIGN: Mixed methods study. SETTING: A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia was used as an exemplar. SAMPLE: A long list of potential core outcomes was developed by undertaking a systematic review of pre-eclampsia trials and performing a thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews. METHODS: Specific methods used to generate long lists of potential core outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Different methodological decisions had a substantial impact on the identification of potential core outcomes. Extracting outcomes from published pre-eclampsia trials was an effective way of identifying 48 maternal, eight fetal, 25 neonatal outcomes, and eight patient-reported outcomes. Limiting the extraction of outcomes to primary outcomes or outcomes commonly reported in pre-eclampsia trials reduced the number and diversity of potential core outcomes identified. Thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews ensured an additional five patient reported outcomes and six outcomes related to future child health were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Future core outcome set developers should use quantitative and qualitative methods when developing a long list of potential core outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @OfficialNIHR research published in @BJOGtweets informs new recommendations for future @coreoutcomes developers.
Authors: J M N Duffy; S Bhattacharya; S Bhattacharya; M Bofill; B Collura; C Curtis; J L H Evers; L C Giudice; R G Farquharson; S Franik; M Hickey; M L Hull; V Jordan; Y Khalaf; R S Legro; S Lensen; D Mavrelos; B W Mol; C Niederberger; E H Y Ng; L Puscasiu; S Repping; I Sarris; M Showell; A Strandell; A Vail; M van Wely; M Vercoe; N L Vuong; A Y Wang; R Wang; J Wilkinson; M A Youssef; C M Farquhar; Ahmed M. Abou-Setta; Juan J. Aguilera; Hisham AlAhwany; Oluseyi O. A. Atanda; Eva M. E. Balkenende; Kurt T. Barnhart; Yusuf Beebeejaun; Georgina M. Chambers; Abrar A. Chughtai; Irene Cuevas-Sáiz; Cate Curtis; Arianna D'Angelo; Danielle D. Dubois; Kirsten Duckitt; Carlos Encinas; Marie-Odile Gerval; Nhu H. Giang; Ahmed Gibreel; Lynda J. Gingel; Elizabeth J. Glanville; Demian Glujovsky; Ingrid Granne; Georg Griesinger; Devashana Gupta Repromed; Zeinab Hamzehgardeshi; Martin Hirsch; Marcos Horton; Shikha Jain; Marta Jansa Perez; Claire A. Jones; Mohan S. Kamath; José Knijnenburg; Elena Kostova; Antonio La Marca; Tien Khac Le; Arthur Leader; Brigitte Leeviers; Jian Li Chinese; Olabisi M. Loto; Karen L. Marks; Rodrigo M. Martinez-Vazquez; Alison R. McTavish; David J. Mills; Raju R. Nair; Dung Thi Phuong Nguyen; Anne-Sophie Otter; Allan A. Pacey; Satu Rautakallio-Hokkanen; Lynn C. Sadler; Peggy Sagle; Juan-Enrique Schwarze; Heather M. Shapiro; Joe L. Simpson; Charalampos S. Siristatidis; Akanksha Sood; Catherine Strawbridge; Helen L. Torrance; Cam Tu Tran; Emma L. Votteler; Chi Chiu Wang; Andrew Watson; Menem Yossry Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: J M N Duffy; H AlAhwany; S Bhattacharya; B Collura; C Curtis; J L H Evers; R G Farquharson; S Franik; L C Giudice; Y Khalaf; J M L Knijnenburg; B Leeners; R S Legro; S Lensen; J C Vazquez-Niebla; D Mavrelos; B W J Mol; C Niederberger; E H Y Ng; A S Otter; L Puscasiu; S Rautakallio-Hokkanen; S Repping; I Sarris; J L Simpson; A Strandell; C Strawbridge; H L Torrance; A Vail; M van Wely; M A Vercoe; N L Vuong; A Y Wang; R Wang; J Wilkinson; M A Youssef; C M Farquhar Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Simen Vergote; Felix De Bie; Jan Bosteels; Holly Hedrick; James Duffy; Beverley Power; Alexandra Benachi; Paolo De Coppi; Caraciolo Fernandes; Kevin Lally; Irwin Reiss; Jan Deprest Journal: Trials Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 2.279