Dylan Herman1,2,3, Kar Yee Lor4, Abdul Qadree5, Daphne Horn6, Rohan D'Souza7,8. 1. Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Division of Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, Room 3-908, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1X5, Canada. 3. Lunenfeld-Tanebaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. 5. Department of Chemical and Physical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Division of Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, Room 3-908, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1X5, Canada. rohan.dsouza@sinaihealthsystem.ca. 8. Lunenfeld-Tanebaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. rohan.dsouza@sinaihealthsystem.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Composite outcomes are increasingly being used in obstetric trials. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the use of composite outcomes in obstetric RCTs with an intention of identifying limitations and providing potential solutions for future research. METHODS: The study protocol was prospectively registered. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Databases and www.clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between 1999 and 2019, using search terms related to pregnancy and composite outcomes. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs involving an obstetric condition that reported on a composite outcome. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and a descriptive synthesis and critical appraisal of composite obstetric outcomes, is presented. RESULTS: Of the 4170 results screened, we identified 156 RCTs, reporting on 181 composite outcomes. Of these, 158 composite outcomes related to general morbidity and mortality, either exclusively maternal (n=20), fetal-neonatal [perinatal] (n=116) or maternal and perinatal (n=22) were included in the final analysis. Obstetric composite outcomes included between two and 16 components. Components that comprised these composite outcomes were often dissimilar in terms of severity and frequency of occurrence, unlikely to have similar relative risk reductions and sometimes unrelated to the study's primary objective - important pre-requisites to consider while constructing composite outcomes. In addition, composite adverse obstetric outcomes often do not incorporate the perspectives of pregnant persons, embrace a holistic view of health or consider outcomes related to both members of the mother-fetus dyad. CONCLUSIONS: Composite outcomes are being increasingly used as primary outcomes in obstetric RCTs, based on which study conclusions are drawn and clinical recommendations made. However, there is a lack of consistency with regard to what components should be included within a composite adverse obstetric outcome and how these components should be measured. The use of novel research methods such as concept mapping may be able to address some of the limitations with the development of composite adverse obstetric outcomes, to inform future research.
BACKGROUND: Composite outcomes are increasingly being used in obstetric trials. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the use of composite outcomes in obstetric RCTs with an intention of identifying limitations and providing potential solutions for future research. METHODS: The study protocol was prospectively registered. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Databases and www.clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between 1999 and 2019, using search terms related to pregnancy and composite outcomes. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs involving an obstetric condition that reported on a composite outcome. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and a descriptive synthesis and critical appraisal of composite obstetric outcomes, is presented. RESULTS: Of the 4170 results screened, we identified 156 RCTs, reporting on 181 composite outcomes. Of these, 158 composite outcomes related to general morbidity and mortality, either exclusively maternal (n=20), fetal-neonatal [perinatal] (n=116) or maternal and perinatal (n=22) were included in the final analysis. Obstetric composite outcomes included between two and 16 components. Components that comprised these composite outcomes were often dissimilar in terms of severity and frequency of occurrence, unlikely to have similar relative risk reductions and sometimes unrelated to the study's primary objective - important pre-requisites to consider while constructing composite outcomes. In addition, composite adverse obstetric outcomes often do not incorporate the perspectives of pregnant persons, embrace a holistic view of health or consider outcomes related to both members of the mother-fetus dyad. CONCLUSIONS: Composite outcomes are being increasingly used as primary outcomes in obstetric RCTs, based on which study conclusions are drawn and clinical recommendations made. However, there is a lack of consistency with regard to what components should be included within a composite adverse obstetric outcome and how these components should be measured. The use of novel research methods such as concept mapping may be able to address some of the limitations with the development of composite adverse obstetric outcomes, to inform future research.
Authors: Victor M Montori; Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda; Ignacio Ferreira-González; Jason W Busse; Valeria Pacheco-Huergo; Dianne Bryant; Jordi Alonso; Elie A Akl; Antònia Domingo-Salvany; Edward Mills; Ping Wu; Holger J Schünemann; Roman Jaeschke; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-03-12
Authors: Ignacio Ferreira-González; Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda; Jason W Busse; Dianne M Bryant; Victor M Montori; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Stephen D Walter; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2007-02-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Amélie Boutin; Amanda Skoll; Emmanuel Bujold; Jason Burrows; Joan Crane; Michael Geary; Venu Jain; Thierry Lacaze-Masmonteil; Jessica Liauw; William Mundle; Kellie Murphy; Suzanne Wong; K S Joseph Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2018-09
Authors: Corine M Koopmans; Denise Bijlenga; Henk Groen; Sylvia Mc Vijgen; Jan G Aarnoudse; Dick J Bekedam; Paul P van den Berg; Karin de Boer; Jan M Burggraaff; Kitty Wm Bloemenkamp; Addy P Drogtrop; Arie Franx; Christianne Jm de Groot; Anjoke Jm Huisjes; Anneke Kwee; Aren J van Loon; Annemiek Lub; Dimitri Nm Papatsonis; Joris Am van der Post; Frans Jme Roumen; Hubertina Cj Scheepers; Christine Willekes; Ben Wj Mol; Maria G van Pampus Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E Abalos; V Addo; P Brocklehurst; M El Sheikh; B Farrell; S Gray; P Hardy; E Juszczak; J E Mathews; S Naz Masood; E Oyarzun; J Oyieke; J B Sharma; P Spark Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B García; E Llurba; L Valle; M D Gómez-Roig; M Juan; C Pérez-Matos; M Fernández; J A García-Hernández; J Alijotas-Reig; M T Higueras; I Calero; M Goya; S Pérez-Hoyos; E Carreras; L Cabero Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.299