Neonatal encephalopathy: a systematic review of reported treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a multi-organ condition potentially leading to death or long-term neurodisability. Therapeutic hypothermia is the standard treatment for NE; however, long-term impairments remain common. Studies of new treatments for NE often measure and report different outcomes. Core outcome sets (COSs), a minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all studies for a condition, address this problem. This paper aimed to identify outcomes reported (primary, secondary, adverse events and other reported outcomes) in (1) randomised trials and (2) systematic reviews of randomised trials of interventions for the treatment of NE in the process of developing a COS for interventions for the treatment of NE. METHODS: We completed a systematic search for outcomes used to evaluate treatments for NE using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two reviewers screened all included articles independently. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, similar outcomes were grouped and outcome domains were developed. RESULTS: 386 outcomes were reported in 116 papers, from 85 studies. Outcomes were categorised into 18 domains. No outcome was reported by all studies, a single study reported 11 outcomes and it was not explicitly stated that outcomes had input from parents. DISCUSSION: Heterogeneity in reported outcomes means that synthesis of studies evaluating new treatments for NE remains difficult. A COS, that includes parental/family input, is needed to ensure consistency in measuring and reporting outcomes, and to enable comparison of randomised trials.

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: stage 1 of the INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) inform health-care decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesize all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of health care-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. METHODS: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorized these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. RESULTS: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Systematic reviews draw upon evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to find out whether treatments are safe and effective. The conclusions from systematic reviews are often very influential, and inform both health-care policy and individual treatment decisions. However, it is now clear that the results of many published RCTs are not genuine. In some cases, the entire study may have been fabricated. It is not usual for the veracity of RCTs to be questioned during the process of compiling a systematic review. As a consequence, these "problematic studies" go unnoticed, and are allowed to contribute to the conclusions of influential systematic reviews, thereby influencing patient care. This prompts the question of how these problematic studies could be identified. In this study, we created an extensive list of checks that could be performed to try to identify these studies. We started by assembling a list of checks identified in previous research, and conducting a survey of experts to ask whether they were aware of any additional methods, and to give feedback on the list. As a result, a list of 116 potential "trustworthiness checks" was created. In subsequent research, we will evaluate these checks to see which should be included in a tool, INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews, which can be used to detect problematic studies.

FERN: is it possible to conduct a randomised controlled trial of intervention or expectant management for early-onset selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancy - protocol for a prospective multicentre mixed-methods feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) in monochorionic twin pregnancy, defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of one twin <10th centile and EFW discordance ≥25%, is associated with stillbirth and neurodisability for both twins. The condition poses unique management difficulties: on the one hand, continuation of the pregnancy carries a risk of death of the smaller twin, with a high risk of co-twin demise (40%) or co-twin neurological sequelae (30%). On the other, early delivery to prevent the death of the smaller twin may expose the larger twin to prematurity, with the associated risks of long-term physical, emotional and financial costs from neurodisability, such as cerebral palsy.When there is severe and early sFGR, before viability, delivery is not an option. In this scenario, there are currently three main management options: (1) expectant management, (2) selective termination of the smaller twin and (3) placental laser photocoagulation of interconnecting vessels. These management options have never been investigated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The best management option is unknown, and there are many challenges for a potential RCT. These include the rarity of the condition resulting in a small number of eligible pregnancies, uncertainty about whether pregnant women will agree to participate in such a trial and whether they will agree to be randomised to expectant management or active fetal intervention, and the challenges of robust and long-term outcome measures. Therefore, the main objective of the FERN study is to assess the feasibility of conducting an RCT of active intervention vs expectant management in monochorionic twin pregnancies with early-onset (prior to 24 weeks) sFGR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FERN study is a prospective mixed-methods feasibility study. The primary objective is to recommend whether an RCT of intervention vs expectant management of sFGR in monochorionic twin pregnancy is feasible by exploring women's preference, clinician's preference, current practice and equipoise and numbers of cases. To achieve this, we propose three distinct work packages (WPs). WP1: A Prospective UK Multicentre Study, WP2A: a Qualitative Study Exploring Parents' and Clinicians' Views and WP3: a Consensus Development to Determine Feasibility of a Trial. Eligible pregnancies will be recruited to WP1 and WP2, which will run concurrently. The results of these two WPs will be used in WP3 to develop consensus on a future definitive study. The duration of the study will be 53 months, composed of 10 months of setup, 39 months of recruitment, 42 months of data collection, and 5 months of data analysis, report writing and recommendations. The pragmatic sample size for WP1 is 100 monochorionic twin pregnancies with sFGR. For WP2, interviews will be conducted until data saturation and sample variance are achieved, that is, when no new major themes are being discovered. Based on previous similar pilot studies, this is anticipated to be approximately 15-25 interviews in both the parent and clinician groups. Engagement of at least 50 UK clinicians is planned for WP3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) South West-Cornwall and Plymouth Ethics Committee (REC reference 20/SW/0156, IRAS ID 286337). All participating sites will undergo site-specific approvals for assessment of capacity and capability by the HRA. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. The results from the FERN project will be used to inform future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is included in the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN16879394) and the NIHR Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS), CRN: Reproductive Health and Childbirth Specialty (UKCRN reference 47201).

Diagnosis and management of selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies: A cross-sectional international survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify current practices in the management of selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) in monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twin pregnancies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Clinicians involved in the management of MCDA twin pregnancies with sFGR. METHODS: A structured, self-administered survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical practices and attitudes to diagnostic criteria and management strategies. RESULTS: Overall, 62.8% (113/180) of clinicians completed the survey; of which, 66.4% (75/113) of the respondents reported that they would use an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of <10th centile for the smaller twin and an inter-twin EFW discordance of >25% for the diagnosis of sFGR. For early-onset type I sFGR, 79.8% (75/94) of respondents expressed that expectant management would be their routine practice. On the other hand, for early-onset type II and type III sFGR, 19.3% (17/88) and 35.7% (30/84) of respondents would manage these pregnancies expectantly, whereas 71.6% (63/88) and 57.1% (48/84) would refer these pregnancies to a fetal intervention centre or would offer fetal intervention for type II and type III cases, respectively. Moreover, 39.0% (16/41) of the respondents would consider fetoscopic laser surgery (FLS) for early-onset type I sFGR, whereas 41.5% (17/41) would offer either FLS or selective feticide, and 12.2% (5/41) would exclusively offer selective feticide. For early-onset type II and type III sFGR cases, 25.9% (21/81) and 31.4% (22/70) would exclusively offer FLS, respectively, whereas 33.3% (27/81) and 32.9% (23/70) would exclusively offer selective feticide. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in clinician practices and attitudes towards the management of early-onset sFGR in MCDA twin pregnancies, especially for type II and type III cases, highlighting the need for high-level evidence to guide management.

Inclusion of harm outcomes in core outcome sets requires careful consideration.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of all published core outcome set (COS) studies that include an adverse event or harm outcome, to determine the proportion of individual vs pooled harms, and to investigate characteristics that influence their inclusion. METHODS: We examined the extent to which a sample of 100 published COS studies (from January 2021 to January 2023) include both pooled and individual harms in the final COS. One investigator extracted the information from the COS studies, which was cross-checked against previous COS investigational research, and where possible verified with COS authors or a pharmacologist. Using Qualtrics™, we conducted a personalized online survey of developers of the 100 COS to ask them about the importance, their experiences, and methodological approaches for dealing with harms within their COS development studies. RESULTS: One hundred COS were identified from 91 separate COS studies, the majority of which considered most of the minimum standards for development. Two-thirds (65%) of the COS included at least 1 harm outcome. In total, 1104 core outcomes were identified across the 100 COS, of which 184 (17%) were harm outcomes (154 individual vs 56 pooled). Individual harms were more likely to be included in a final COS if they were developed for single treatment interventions (50%) compared to those being developed for multitreatment modalities (39%). Some COS developers adopted outcome frameworks as part of their COS development process to facilitate the inclusion of harm outcomes in their final COS. A third (33%) of respondents felt that harm outcomes should be included in all COS but over half (56%) thought this would be dependent on some aspect of the scope of the COS and improved methodology and awareness of how to deal with harm outcomes in the COS development process. CONCLUSION: Harm outcomes are already included in many COS either as individual or pooled harms. It is evident that there are some challenges with regards to both the methodology and necessity to include harms within a COS (pooled or individual. COS developers should carefully consider the need to include important harms outcomes in relation to the scope of the COS that they are developing.

Selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions in health psychology and behavioural medicine journals: a review.

Selective outcome reporting can result in overestimation of treatment effects, research waste, and reduced openness and transparency. This review aimed to examine selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions and determine potential outcome reporting bias. A review of nine health psychology and behavioural medicine journals was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural health interventions published since 2019. Discrepancies in outcome reporting were observed in 90% of the 29 trials with corresponding registrations/protocols. Discrepancies included 72% of trials omitting prespecified outcomes; 55% of trials introduced new outcomes. Thirty-eight percent of trials omitted prespecified and introduced new outcomes. Three trials (10%) downgraded primary outcomes in registrations/protocols to secondary outcomes in final reports; downgraded outcomes were not statistically significant in two trials. Five trials (17%) upgraded secondary outcomes to primary outcomes; upgraded outcomes were statistically significant in all trials. In final reports, three trials (7%) omitted outcomes from the methods section; three trials (7%) introduced new outcomes in results that were not in the methods. These findings indicate that selective outcome reporting is a problem in behavioural health intervention trials. Journal- and trialist-level approaches are needed to minimise selective outcome reporting in health psychology and behavioural medicine.

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Study found increasing use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews and identified facilitators and barriers.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019, only 7% of Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) cited a core outcome set (COS) in relation to choosing outcomes, even though a relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for a further 29% of SRs. Our objectives for the current work were to (1) examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs, and (2) understand author facilitators and barriers to using COS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined all completed Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022 for the extent to which they: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, (c) used outcomes from existing COS, and (d) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator extracted information; a second extractor verified all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. We then conducted an online survey of authors of the included SRs to assess awareness of COS and identify facilitators and barriers to using COS to inform outcome choice. RESULTS: Objective 1: We included 294 SRs of interventions (84 completed SRs and 210 published SR protocols), of which 13% cited specific COS and 5% did not cite but mentioned searching for COS. A median of 83% of core outcomes from cited COS (interquartile range [IQR] 57%-100%) were included in the corresponding SR. We identified a relevant COS for 39% of SRs that did not cite a COS. A median of 50% of core outcomes from noncited COS (IQR 35%-72%) were included in the corresponding SR. Objective 2: Authors of 236 (80%) of the 294 eligible SRs completed our survey. Seventy-seven percent of authors noted being aware of COS before the survey. Fifty-five percent of authors who did not cite COS but were aware of them reported searching for a COS. The most reported facilitators of using COS were author awareness of the existence of COS (59%), author positive perceptions of COS (52%), and recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook regarding COS use (48%). The most reported barriers related to matching of the scope of the COS and the SR: the COS target population was too narrow/broad relative to the SR population (29%) or the COS target intervention was too narrow/broad relative to the SR intervention (21%). Most authors (87%) mentioned that they would consider incorporating missing core outcomes in the SR/update. CONCLUSION: Since 2019, there is increasing consideration and awareness of COS when choosing outcomes for Cochrane SRs of interventions, but uptake remains low and can be improved further. Use of COS in SRs is important to improve outcome standardization, reduce research waste, and improve evidence syntheses of the relevant effects of interventions across health research.

Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology.

INTRODUCTION: Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Using behavioral science to increase core outcome set use in trials.

OBJECTIVES: Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed sets of outcomes for use in clinical trials, which can increase standardization and reduce heterogeneity of outcomes in research. Using a COS, or not, is a behavior that can potentially be increased using behavioral strategies. The aim of this study was to identify behavioral intervention components to potentially increase use of COS in trials. METHODS: This project was informed by the Behavior Change Wheel framework. Two reviewers extracted barriers and facilitators to COS use from four recently published studies examining COS use in trials. Barriers and facilitators were coded to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model, which forms part of the Behavior Change Wheel. COM-B findings were mapped to intervention functions by two reviewers, and then mapped to behavior change techniques (BCTs). Full-team Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/Cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side effects/Safety, Equity ratings were used to reach consensus on intervention functions and BCTs. BCTs were operationalized using examples of tangible potential applications and were categorized based on similarity. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were identified for all capability, opportunity and motivation aspects of the COM-B model. Five intervention functions (education, training, enablement, persuasion, and modeling) and 15 BCTs were identified. Thirty-six BCT examples were developed, including providing information on benefits of COS for health research, and information choosing COS. BCT examples are categorized by approaches related to "workshops," "guidance," "audio/visual resources," and "other resources." CONCLUSION: Study findings represent diverse ways to potentially increase COS use in trials. Future work is needed to examine effects of these behavioral intervention components on COS use. If effective, increased use of COS can improve outcome reporting and minimize outcome heterogeneity and research waste.

Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the reproducibility of biomedical systematic review search strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional reproducibility study was conducted on a random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced, operationalized as fulfilling six key Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S) reporting guideline items and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results. Key reporting guideline items included database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records. RESULTS: The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. Only 22 (4.9%) database searches reported all six PRISMA-S items. Forty-seven (10.4%) database searches could be reproduced within 10% of the number of results from the original search; six searches differed by more than 1,000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary search details to be fully reproducible. CONCLUSION: Systematic review search reporting is poor. To correct this will require a multifaceted response from authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.

COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE. METHODS: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment. CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS. IMPACT: We have identified seven outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Previously, a core outcome set for neonatal encephalopathy treatments did not exist. This will help to reduce heterogeneity in outcomes reported in clinical trials and other studies, and help researchers identify the best treatments for neonatal encephalopathy.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal sepsis (NESCOS).

Neonatal sepsis is a serious public health problem; however, there is substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in research evaluating the effectiveness of the treatments. Therefore, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for neonatal sepsis. Since a systematic review of key outcomes from randomised trials of therapeutic interventions in neonatal sepsis was published recently, we will complement this with a qualitative systematic review of the key outcomes of neonatal sepsis identified by parents, other family members, parent representatives, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers. We will interpret the outcomes of both studies using a previously established framework. Stakeholders across three different groups i.e., (1) researchers, (2) healthcare providers, and (3) patients' parents/family members and parent representatives will rate the importance of the outcomes in an online Real-Time Delphi Survey. Afterwards, consensus meetings will be held to agree on the final COS through online discussions with key stakeholders. This COS is expected to minimize outcome heterogeneity in measurements and publications, improve comparability and synthesis, and decrease research waste.

Gynecological trials frequently exclude people based on their symptoms rather than their condition: a systematic review of Cochrane reviews and their component trials.

OBJECTIVES: To identify strategies used in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their associated Cochrane Reviews where patients with the same gynecological condition present with different symptoms but would plausibly benefit from a common intervention. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the Cochrane library (February 2022) for reviews in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. Reviews were included if the intervention was intended to treat all condition-specific symptoms. For each trial we recorded the strategy used and the number of potentially eligible participants excluded as a direct result of the chosen strategy. For each review we recorded the numbers of RCTs and participants excluded on the basis of symptoms experienced. RESULTS: There were 89 distinct PCOS trials in 13 reviews, and 13 Endometriosis trials in 11 reviews. Most trials restricted their eligibility to participants with specific symptoms (55% PCOS, 46% endometriosis). The second most common strategy was to measure and analyze clinical outcomes that were not relevant to all participants (38% PCOS, 31% endometriosis). Reviews excluded 27% of trials in participants evaluating the same intervention in participants experiencing the same condition based on the outcomes measured in the trials. CONCLUSION: Most gynecological trials exclude patients who could benefit from treatment or measure outcomes not relevant to all participants. We introduce a taxonomy to describe trial design strategies for conditions with heterogeneous symptoms.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INSPECT-SR project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare related interventions. Methods and analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: 1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, 2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, 3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in 4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format, 5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies, and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

Assessment highlights need for improvement in standards of development of core outcome sets for rare genetic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: A rare disease is classified as such if it affects less than one person in 2,000. The Core Outcome Set STandards for Development (COS-STAD) is a set of standards that represent the minimum recommendations to be considered in the process of core outcome set (COS) development. The aim of this study was to provide a baseline assessment of COS development standards for rare genetic diseases. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database contains nearly 400 published COS studies according to the latest systematic review. Studies focusing on COS development for rare genetic diseases were eligible for inclusion and were assessed by two independent evaluators. RESULTS: Nine COS studies were included in the analysis. Eight different rare genetic diseases were investigated. None of the studies met all the standards for development. The number of standards met ranged from 6 to 10, and the median was 7. CONCLUSION: This study is the first study to assess COS-STAD for rare genetic diseases, and it highlights a great need for improvement. First in terms of numbers of rare diseases considered for COS developments, second in methodology, particularly regarding the consensus process, and third in reporting of the COS development studies.

Multi-Round versus Real-Time Delphi survey approach for achieving consensus in the COHESION core outcome set: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Delphi surveys are commonly used to prioritise critical outcomes in core outcome set (COS) development. This trial aims to compare a three-round (Multi-Round) Delphi (MRD) with a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) in the prioritisation of outcomes for inclusion in a COS for neonatal encephalopathy treatments and explore whether 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects may occur in the two survey methods. METHODS: We recruited 269 participants (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers/academics) of which 222 were randomised to either the MRD or the RTD. We investigated the outcomes prioritised in each survey and the 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects to identify differences between the two survey methods. RESULTS: In the RTD, n = 92 participants (83%) fully completed the survey. In the MRD, n = 60 participants (54%) completed all three rounds. Of the 92 outcomes presented, 26 (28%) were prioritised differently between the RTD and MRD. Significantly fewer participants amended their scores when shown stakeholder responses in the RTD compared to the MRD ('feedback effect'). The 'iteration effect' analysis found most experts appeared satisfied with their initial ratings in the RTD and did not amend their scores following stakeholder response feedback. Where they did amend their scores, ratings were amended substantially, suggesting greater convergence. Variance in scores reduced with subsequent rounds of the MRD ('iteration effect'). Whilst most participants did not change their initial scores in the RTD, of those that did, later recruits tended to align their final score more closely to the group mean final score than earlier recruits (an 'initial condition' effect). CONCLUSION: The feedback effect differed between the two Delphi methods but the magnitude of this difference was small and likely due to the large number of observations rather than because of a meaningfully large difference. It did not appear to be advantageous to require participants to engage in three rounds of a survey due to the low change in scores. Larger drop-out through successive rounds in the MRD, together with a lesser convergence of scores and longer time to completion, indicate considerable benefits of the RTD approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020.