Deferred cord clamping, cord milking, and immediate cord clamping at preterm birth: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord clamping strategies at preterm birth have the potential to affect important health outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of deferred cord clamping, umbilical cord milking, and immediate cord clamping in reducing neonatal mortality and morbidity at preterm birth. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. We searched medical databases and trial registries (from database inception until Feb 24, 2022; updated June 6, 2023) for randomised controlled trials comparing deferred (also known as delayed) cord clamping, cord milking, and immediate cord clamping for preterm births (<37 weeks' gestation). Quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised trials were excluded. Authors of eligible studies were invited to join the iCOMP collaboration and share individual participant data. All data were checked, harmonised, re-coded, and assessed for risk of bias following prespecified criteria. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. We performed intention-to-treat one-stage individual participant data meta-analyses accounting for heterogeneity to examine treatment effects overall and in prespecified subgroup analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136640. FINDINGS: We identified 2369 records, of which 48 randomised trials provided individual participant data and were eligible for our primary analysis. We included individual participant data on 6367 infants (3303 [55%] male, 2667 [45%] female, two intersex, and 395 missing data). Deferred cord clamping, compared with immediate cord clamping, reduced death before discharge (odds ratio [OR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·51-0·91], high-certainty evidence, 20 studies, n=3260, 232 deaths). For umbilical cord milking compared with immediate cord clamping, no clear evidence was found of a difference in death before discharge (OR 0·73 [0·44-1·20], low certainty, 18 studies, n=1561, 74 deaths). Similarly, for umbilical cord milking compared with deferred cord clamping, no clear evidence was found of a difference in death before discharge (0·95 [0·59-1·53], low certainty, 12 studies, n=1303, 93 deaths). We found no evidence of subgroup differences for the primary outcome, including by gestational age, type of delivery, multiple birth, study year, and perinatal mortality. INTERPRETATION: This study provides high-certainty evidence that deferred cord clamping, compared with immediate cord clamping, reduces death before discharge in preterm infants. This effect appears to be consistent across several participant-level and trial-level subgroups. These results will inform international treatment recommendations. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Short, medium, and long deferral of umbilical cord clamping compared with umbilical cord milking and immediate clamping at preterm birth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis with individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Deferred (also known as delayed) cord clamping can improve survival of infants born preterm (before 37 weeks of gestation), but the optimal duration of deferral remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the effectiveness of umbilical cord clamping strategies with different timings of clamping or with cord milking for preterm infants. METHODS: We searched medical databases and trial registries from inception until Feb 24, 2022 (updated June 6, 2023) for randomised controlled trials comparing cord clamping strategies for preterm infants. Individual participant data were harmonised and assessed for risk of bias and quality. Interventions were grouped into immediate clamping, short deferral (≥15 s to <45 s), medium deferral (≥45 s to <120 s), long deferral (≥120 s), and intact cord milking. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. We calculated one-stage, intention-to-treat Bayesian random-effects individual participant data network meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136640. FINDINGS: We included individual participant data from 47 trials with 6094 participants. Of all interventions, long deferral reduced death before discharge the most (compared with immediate clamping; odds ratio 0·31 [95% credibility interval] 0·11-0·80; moderate certainty). The risk of bias was low for 10 (33%) of 30 trials, 14 (47%) had some concerns, and 6 (20%) were rated as having a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity was low, with no indication of inconsistency. INTERPRETATION: This study found that long deferral of clamping leads to reduced odds of death before discharge in preterm infants. In infants assessed as requiring immediate resuscitation, this finding might only be generalisable if there are provisions for such care with the cord intact. These results are based on thoroughly cleaned and checked individual participant data and can inform future guidelines and practice. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Does fetal size affect maternal perception of fetal movements? Evidence from an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Maternal perception of fetal movements during pregnancy are reassuring; however, the perception of a reduction in movements are concerning to women and known to be associated with increased odds of late stillbirth. Prior to full term, little evidence exists to provide guidelines on how to proceed unless there is an immediate risk to the fetus. Increased strength of movement is the most commonly reported perception of women through to full term, but perception of movement is also hypothesized to be influenced by fetal size. The study aimed to assess the pattern of maternal perception of strength and frequency of fetal movement by gestation and customized birthweight quartile in ongoing pregnancies. A further aim was to assess the association of stillbirth to perception of fetal movements stratified by customized birthweight quartile. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This analysis was an individual participant data meta-analyses of five case-control studies investigating factors associated with stillbirth. The dataset included 851 cases of women with late stillbirth (>28 weeks' gestation) and 2257 women with ongoing pregnancies who then had a liveborn infant. RESULTS: The frequency of prioritized fetal movement from 28 weeks' gestation showed a similar pattern for each quartile of birthweight with increased strength being the predominant perception of fetal movement through to full term. The odds of stillbirth associated with reduced fetal movements was increased in all quartiles of customized birthweight centiles but was notably greater in babies in the lowest two quartiles (Q1: adjusted OR: 9.34, 95% CI: 5.43, 16.06 and Q2: adjusted OR: 6.11, 95% CI: 3.11, 11.99). The decreased odds associated with increased strength of movement was present for all customized birthweight quartiles (adjusted OR range: 0.25-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Increased strength of fetal movements in late pregnancy is a positive finding irrespective of fetal size. However, reduced fetal movements are associated with stillbirth, and more so when the fetus is small.

PROMPT: Prospective Meta-analysis for Pessary Trials Study Protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Preterm birth, defined as birth before 37 weeks of gestation, is a leading cause of perinatal and infant mortality throughout the world. Preterm birth is also associated with long-term neurological disabilities and other significant health issues in children. A short cervix in the second trimester has been noted to be one of the strongest predictors of subsequent spontaneous preterm birth in both singleton and multiple pregnancies. Some studies have shown that cervical support in the form of an Arabin pessary lowers the risk of preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation and short cervical length; however, other studies have conflicting results. Our objective was to form an international collaborative of planned or ongoing randomized trials of pessary in singleton and twin gestations with a short cervix. STUDY DESIGN: In November 2014, an international group of investigators, who had initiated or were planning randomized trials of pessary for pregnant people with a short cervix and singleton or twin gestation to prevent preterm birth, formed a collaboration to plan a prospective individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized trials (PROspective Meta-analysis of Pessary Trials [PROMPT]). The PROMPT investigators agreed on meta-analysis IPD hypotheses for singletons and twins, eligibility criteria, and a set of core baseline and outcome measures. The primary outcome is a composite of fetal death or preterm delivery before 32 weeks' gestation. Secondary outcomes include maternal and neonatal morbidities. The PROMPT protocol may be viewed as a written agreement among the study investigators who make up the PROMPT consortium (PROSPERO ID# CRD42018067740). RESULTS: Results will be published in phases as the individual participating studies are concluded and published. Results of the first phase of singleton and twin pessary trials are expected to be available in late 2022. Updates are planned as participating trials are completed and published. KEY POINTS: · Short cervical length predicts preterm birth.. · Results of prior cervical pessary trials are mixed.. · Meta-analysis of pessary trials protocol..

Individual participant data meta-analysis versus aggregate data meta-analysis: A case study in eczema and food allergy prevention.

INTRODUCTION: Meta-analysis traditionally uses aggregate data from published reports. Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analysis, which obtains and synthesizes participant-level data, is potentially more informative, but resource-intensive. The impact on the findings of meta-analyses using IPD in comparison with aggregate data has rarely been formally evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review of skincare interventions for preventing eczema and food allergy in infants to identify the impact of the analytical choice on the review's findings. We used aggregate data meta-analysis only and contrasted the results against those of the originally published IPD meta-analysis. All meta-analysis used random effects inverse variance models. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: The pooled treatment effects for the Cochrane systematic review's co-primary outcomes of eczema and food allergy were similar in IPD meta-analysis (eczema RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I2 41%, 7 studies 3075 participants), and aggregate meta-analysis (eczema RR 1.01 95% CI 0.77, 1.33; I2 53%, 7 studies, 3089 participants). In aggregate meta-analysis, the statistical heterogeneity could not be explained but using IPD it was explained by one trial which used a different, bathing intervention. For IPD meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed as lower and more adverse event data were available compared with aggregate meta-analysis. This resulted in higher certainty of evidence, especially for adverse events. IPD meta-analysis enabled analysis of treatment interactions by age and hereditary eczema risk; and analysis of the effect of treatment adherence using pooled complier-adjusted-causal-effect analysis, none of which was possible in aggregate meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For this systematic review, IPD did not significantly change primary outcome risk ratios compared with aggregate data meta-analysis. However, certainty of evidence, safety outcomes, subgroup and adherence analyses were significantly different using IPD. This demonstrates benefits of adopting an IPD approach to meta-analysis.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective for preventing eczema or food allergy. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To assess the effects of skin care interventions such as emollients for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants. Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed an updated search of the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2021. We searched two trials registers in July 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and scanned conference proceedings to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (≤ 12 months) without pre-existing eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition. Eligible comparisons were standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions could include moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured at the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 33 RCTs comprising 25,827 participants. Of these, 17 studies randomising 5823 participants reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review.  We included 11 studies, randomising 5217 participants, in one or more meta-analyses (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis), with 10 of these studies providing IPD; the remaining 6 studies were included in the narrative results only.   Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although the definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to three years. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported information on our prespecified outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. We assessed most of the evidence in the review as low certainty and had some concerns about risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. We assessed the evidence for the primary food allergy outcome as high risk of bias due to the inclusion of only one trial, where findings varied based on different assumptions about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change the risk of eczema by one to three years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; risk difference 5 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI 28 less to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) or time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may increase the risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to three years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.49; low-certainty evidence; 976 participants, 1 trial) but may not change risk of allergic sensitisation to a food allergen by age one to three years (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence; 1794 participants, 3 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial); however, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to over-reporting of milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.75; risk difference 17 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI one more to 38 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase the risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) and stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although CIs for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions were wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed that the effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, filaggrin (FLG) mutation, chromosome 11 intergenic variant rs2212434, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and eczema or food allergy development. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence, skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema; may increase risk of food allergy; and probably increase risk of skin infection. Further study is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might prevent eczema or food allergy.

Landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia: an overview using clinical trial registry data from 2008-2018.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter respectfully referred to as Indigenous Australians) represent about 3% of the total Australian population. Major health disparities exist between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. To address this, it is vital to understand key health priorities and knowledge gaps in the current landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia. METHODS: Australian-based clinical trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry or ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2018 were analysed. Australian clinical trials with and without a focus on Indigenous health were compared in terms of total numbers, participant size, conditions studied, design, intervention type and funding source. RESULTS: Of the 9206 clinical trials included, 139 (1.5%) focused on Indigenous health, with no proportional increase in Indigenous trials over the decade (p = 0.30). Top conditions studied in Indigenous-focused trials were mental health (n = 35, 28%), cardiovascular disease (n = 20, 20%) and infection (n = 16, 16%). Compared to General Australian trials, Indigenous-focused trials more frequently studied ear conditions (OR 20.26, 95% CI 10.32-37.02, p < 0.001), infection (OR 3.11, 95% CI 1.88-4.85, p < 0.001) and reproductive health (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.50-4.15, p < 0.001), and less of musculoskeletal conditions (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00-0.37, p < 0.001), anaesthesiology (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01-0.69, p = 0.021) and surgery (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.73, p = 0.027). For intervention types, Indigenous trials focused more on prevention (n = 48, 36%) and screening (n = 18, 13%). They were far less involved in treatment (n = 72, 52%) as an intervention than General Australian trials (n = 6785, 75%), and were less likely to be blinded (n = 48, 35% vs n = 4273, 47%) or have industry funding (n = 9, 7% vs 1587, 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Trials with an Indigenous focus differed from General Australian trials in the conditions studied, design and funding source. The presented findings may inform research prioritisation and alleviate the substantial burden of disease for Indigenous population.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

A better understanding of the association between maternal perception of foetal movements and late stillbirth-findings from an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Late stillbirth continues to affect 3-4/1000 pregnancies in high-resource settings, with even higher rates in low-resource settings. Reduced foetal movements are frequently reported by women prior to foetal death, but there remains a poor understanding of the reasons and how to deal with this symptom clinically, particularly during the preterm phase of gestation. We aimed to determine which women are at the greatest odds of stillbirth in relation to the maternal report of foetal movements in late pregnancy (≥ 28 weeks' gestation). METHODS: This is an individual participant data meta-analysis of all identified case-control studies of late stillbirth. Studies included in the IPD were two from New Zealand, one from Australia, one from the UK and an internet-based study based out of the USA. There were a total of 851 late stillbirths, and 2257 controls with ongoing pregnancies. RESULTS: Increasing strength of foetal movements was the most commonly reported (> 60%) pattern by women in late pregnancy, which were associated with a decreased odds of late stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.20, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.27). Compared to no change in strength or frequency women reporting decreased frequency of movements in the last 2 weeks had increased odds of late stillbirth (aOR = 2.33, 95% CI 1.73 to 3.14). Interaction analysis showed increased strength of movements had a greater protective effect and decreased frequency of movements greater odds of late stillbirth at preterm gestations (28-36 weeks' gestation). Foetal hiccups (aOR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.58) and regular episodes of vigorous movement (aOR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.87) were associated with decreased odds of late stillbirth. A single episode of unusually vigorous movement was associated with increased odds (aOR = 2.86, 95% CI 2.01 to 4.07), which was higher in women at term. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced foetal movements are associated with late stillbirth, with the association strongest at preterm gestations. Foetal hiccups and multiple episodes of vigorous movements are reassuring at all gestations after 28 weeks' gestation, whereas a single episode of vigorous movement is associated with stillbirth at term.

Skincare interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy: A cochrane systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Eczema and food allergy start in infancy and have shared genetic risk factors that affect skin barrier. We aimed to evaluate whether skincare interventions can prevent eczema or food allergy. DESIGN: A prospectively planned individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out within a Cochrane systematic review to determine whether skincare interventions in term infants prevent eczema or food allergy. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to July 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STUDIES: Included studies were randomized controlled trials of infants <1 year with healthy skin comparing a skin intervention with a control, for prevention of eczema and food allergy outcomes between 1 and 3 years. RESULTS: Of the 33 identified trials, 17 trials (5823 participants) had relevant outcome data and 10 (5154 participants) contributed to IPD meta-analysis. Three of seven trials contributing to primary eczema analysis were at low risk of bias, and the single trial contributing to primary food allergy analysis was at high risk of bias. Interventions were mainly emollients, applied for the first 3-12 months. Skincare interventions probably do not change risk of eczema by age 1-3 years (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I2 =41%; moderate certainty; 3075 participants, 7 trials). Sensitivity analysis found heterogeneity was explained by increased eczema in a trial of daily bathing as part of the intervention. It is unclear whether skincare interventions increase risk of food allergy by age 1-3 years (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; very low certainty; 996 participants, 1 trial), but they probably increase risk of local skin infections (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02, 1.77; I2 =0%; moderate certainty; 2728 participants, 6 trials). CONCLUSION: Regular emollients during infancy probably do not prevent eczema and probably increase local skin infections.

Enteral zinc supplementation for prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm neonates.

BACKGROUND: Preterm and low birth weight infants are born with low stores in zinc, which is a vital trace element for growth, cell differentiation and immune function. Preterm infants are at risk of zinc deficiency during the postnatal period of rapid growth. Systematic reviews in the older paediatric population have previously shown that zinc supplementation potentially improves growth and positively influences the course of infectious diseases. In paediatric reviews, the effect of zinc supplementation was most pronounced in those with low nutritional status, which is why the intervention could also benefit preterm infants typically born with low zinc stores and decreased immunity. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether enteral zinc supplementation, compared with placebo or no supplementation, affects important outcomes in preterm infants, including death, neurodevelopment, common morbidities and growth. SEARCH METHODS: Our searches are up-to-date to 20 February 2020. For the first search, we used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 29 September 2017), Embase (1980 to 29 September 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 29 September 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. We ran an updated search from 1 January 2017 to 20 February 2020 in the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web, MEDLINE via Ovid, and CINAHL via EBSCOhost. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared enteral zinc supplementation versus placebo or no supplementation in preterm infants (gestational age < 37 weeks), and low birth weight babies (birth weight < 2500 grams), at any time during their hospital admission after birth. We included zinc supplementation in any formulation, regimen, or dose administered via the enteral route. We excluded infants who underwent gastrointestinal (GI) surgery during their initial hospital stay, or had a GI malformation or another condition accompanied by abnormal losses of GI juices, which contain high levels of zinc (including, but not limited to, stomas, fistulas, and malabsorptive diarrhoea). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately screened abstracts, evaluated trial quality and extracted data. We synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), risk differences (RD), and standardised mean differences (SMD). Our primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials with a total of 482 preterm infants; there was one ongoing trial. The five included trials were generally small, but of good methodological quality. Enteral zinc supplementation compared to no zinc supplementation Enteral zinc supplementation started in hospitalised preterm infants may decrease all-cause mortality (between start of intervention and end of follow-up period) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97; 3 studies, 345 infants; low-certainty evidence). No data were available on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months of (post-term) age. Enteral zinc supplementation may have little or no effect on common morbidities such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.40, 1 study, 193 infants; low-certainty evidence), retinopathy of prematurity (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.70, 1 study, 193 infants; low-certainty evidence), bacterial sepsis (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.04, 2 studies, 293 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), or necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.33, 1 study, 193 infants; low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably improves weight gain (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64; 5 studies, 481 infants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may slightly improve linear growth (SMD 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14, 3 studies, 289 infants; low-certainty evidence), but may have little or no effect on head growth (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.44, 3 studies, 289 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Enteral supplementation of zinc in preterm infants compared to no supplementation or placebo may moderately decrease mortality and probably improve short-term weight gain and linear growth, but may have little or no effect on common morbidities of prematurity. There are no data to assess the effect of zinc supplementation on long-term neurodevelopment.

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen. MAIN RESULTS: This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation,  or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.

Oral health of aboriginal people with kidney disease living in Central Australia.

BACKGROUND: Associations between kidney disease and periodontal disease are not well documented among Aboriginal people of Australia. The purpose of this investigation was to report and compare demographic, oral health, anthropometric and systemic health status of Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease and to compare against relevant Aboriginal Australians and Australian population estimates. This provides much needed evidence to inform dental health service provision policies for Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease. METHODS: Sample frequencies and means were assessed in adults represented in six datasets including: (1) 102 Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease residing in Central Australia who participated in a detailed oral health assessment; (2) 312 Aboriginal participants of the Northern Territory's PerioCardio study; (3) weighted estimates from 4775 participants from Australia's National Survey of Adult Oral Health (NSAOH); (4) Australian 2016 Census (all Australians); (5) National Health Survey 2017-2018 (all Australians) and; (6) Australian Health Survey: Biomedical Results for Chronic Diseases, 2011-2012 (all Australians). Oral health status was described by periodontal disease and experience of dental caries (tooth decay). Statistically significant differences were determined via non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease were significantly older, less likely to have a tertiary qualification or be employed compared with both PerioCardio study counterparts and NSAOH participants. Severe periodontitis was found in 54.3% of Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease, almost 20 times the 2.8% reported in NSAOH. A higher proportion of Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease had teeth with untreated caries and fewer dental restorations when compared to NSAOH participants. The extent of periodontal attachment loss and periodontal pocketing among Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease (51.0%, 21.4% respectively) was several magnitudes greater than PerioCardio study (22.0%, 12.3% respectively) and NSAOH (5.4%, 1.3% respectively) estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease exhibited more indicators of poorer oral health than both the general Australian population and a general Aboriginal population from Australia's Northern Territory. It is imperative that management of oral health among Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease be included as part of their ongoing medical care.

Delayed versus Immediate Cord Clamping in Preterm Infants.

BACKGROUND: The preferred timing of umbilical-cord clamping in preterm infants is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned fetuses from women who were expected to deliver before 30 weeks of gestation to either immediate clamping of the umbilical cord (≤10 seconds after delivery) or delayed clamping (≥60 seconds after delivery). The primary composite outcome was death or major morbidity (defined as severe brain injury on postnatal ultrasonography, severe retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, or late-onset sepsis) by 36 weeks of postmenstrual age. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, accounting for multiple births. RESULTS: Of 1634 fetuses that underwent randomization, 1566 were born alive before 30 weeks of gestation; of these, 782 were assigned to immediate cord clamping and 784 to delayed cord clamping. The median time between delivery and cord clamping was 5 seconds and 60 seconds in the respective groups. Complete data on the primary outcome were available for 1497 infants (95.6%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the primary outcome between infants assigned to delayed clamping (37.0%) and those assigned to immediate clamping (37.2%) (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.13; P=0.96). The mortality was 6.4% in the delayed-clamping group and 9.0% in the immediate-clamping group (P=0.03 in unadjusted analyses; P=0.39 after post hoc adjustment for multiple secondary outcomes). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidences of chronic lung disease or other major morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Among preterm infants, delayed cord clamping did not result in a lower incidence of the combined outcome of death or major morbidity at 36 weeks of gestation than immediate cord clamping. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] and the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; APTS Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12610000633088 .).

External validation of prognostic models predicting pre-eclampsia: individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk during pregnancy is required to plan management. Although there are many published prediction models for pre-eclampsia, few have been validated in external data. Our objective was to externally validate published prediction models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data (IPD) from UK studies, to evaluate whether any of the models can accurately predict the condition when used within the UK healthcare setting. METHODS: IPD from 11 UK cohort studies (217,415 pregnant women) within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) pre-eclampsia network contributed to external validation of published prediction models, identified by systematic review. Cohorts that measured all predictor variables in at least one of the identified models and reported pre-eclampsia as an outcome were included for validation. We reported the model predictive performance as discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large), and net benefit. Performance measures were estimated separately in each available study and then, where possible, combined across studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 131 published models, 67 provided the full model equation and 24 could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Most of the models showed modest discrimination with summary C-statistics between 0.6 and 0.7. The calibration of the predicted compared to observed risk was generally poor for most models with observed calibration slopes less than 1, indicating that predictions were generally too extreme, although confidence intervals were wide. There was large between-study heterogeneity in each model's calibration-in-the-large, suggesting poor calibration of the predicted overall risk across populations. In a subset of models, the net benefit of using the models to inform clinical decisions appeared small and limited to probability thresholds between 5 and 7%. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated models had modest predictive performance, with key limitations such as poor calibration (likely due to overfitting in the original development datasets), substantial heterogeneity, and small net benefit across settings. The evidence to support the use of these prediction models for pre-eclampsia in clinical decision-making is limited. Any models that we could not validate should be examined in terms of their predictive performance, net benefit, and heterogeneity across multiple UK settings before consideration for use in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42015029349 .

Network meta-analyses in reproductive medicine: challenges and opportunities.

Network meta-analysis allows researchers to synthesise both direct and indirect evidence, thus enabling simultaneous comparisons of multiple treatments. A relatively recent addition to evidence synthesis in reproductive medicine, this approach has become increasingly popular. Yet, the underlying assumptions of network meta-analyses, which drive the validity of their findings, have been frequently ignored. In this article, we discuss the strengths and limitations of network meta-analyses. In addition, we present an overview of published network meta-analyses in reproductive medicine, summarize their challenges and provide insights into future research opportunities.

Prediction of pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women using routinely collected maternal characteristics: a model development and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend identifying in early pregnancy women at elevated risk of pre-eclampsia. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a pre-eclampsia risk prediction model for nulliparous women attending routine antenatal care "the Western Sydney (WS) model"; and to compare its performance with the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) risk factor-list approach for classifying women as high-risk. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all nulliparous women who gave birth in three public hospitals in the Western-Sydney-Local-Health-District, Australia 2011-2014. Using births from 2011 to 2012, multivariable logistic regression incorporated established maternal risk factors to develop and internally validate the WS model. The WS model was then externally validated using births from 2013 to 2014, assessing its discrimination and calibration. We fitted the final WS model for all births from 2011 to 2014, and compared its accuracy in predicting pre-eclampsia with the NICE approach. RESULTS: Among 12,395 births to nulliparous women in 2011-2014, there were 293 (2.4%) pre-eclampsia events. The WS model included: maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, multiple pregnancy, family history of pre-eclampsia, autoimmune disease, chronic hypertension and chronic renal disease. In the validation sample (6201 births), the model c-statistic was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75). The observed:expected ratio for pre-eclampsia was 0.91, with a Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p-value of 0.20. In the entire study sample of 12,395 births, 374 (3.0%) women had a WS model-estimated pre-eclampsia risk ≥8%, the pre-specified risk-threshold for considering aspirin prophylaxis. Of these, 54 (14.4%) developed pre-eclampsia (sensitivity 18% (14-23), specificity 97% (97-98)). Using the NICE approach, 1173 (9.5%) women were classified as high-risk, of which 107 (9.1%) developed pre-eclampsia (sensitivity 37% (31-42), specificity 91% (91-92)). The final model showed similar accuracy to the NICE approach when using lower risk-threshold of ≥4% to classify women as high-risk for pre-eclampsia. CONCLUSION: The WS risk model that combines readily-available maternal characteristics achieved modest performance for prediction of pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women. The model did not outperform the NICE approach, but has the advantage of providing individualised absolute risk estimates, to assist with counselling, inform decisions for further testing, and consideration of aspirin prophylaxis.