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.

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.

Development of a video-based evidence synthesis knowledge translation resource: Drawing on a user-centred design approach.

Objectives: We aimed to develop a video animation knowledge translation (KT) resource to explain the purpose, use and importance of evidence synthesis to the public regarding healthcare decision-making. Methods: We drew on a user-centred design approach to develop a spoken animated video (SAV) by conducting two cycles of idea generation, prototyping, user testing, analysis, and refinement. Six researchers identified the initial key messages of the SAV and informed the first draft of the storyboard and script. Seven members of the public provided input on this draft and the key messages through think-aloud interviews, which we used to develop an SAV prototype. Seven additional members of the public participated in think-aloud interviews while watching the video prototype. All members of the public also completed a questionnaire on perceived usefulness, desirability, clarity and credibility. We subsequently synthesised all data to develop the final SAV. Results: Researchers identified the initial key messages as 1) the importance of evidence synthesis, 2) what an evidence synthesis is and 3) how evidence synthesis can impact healthcare decision-making. Members of the public rated the initial video prototype as 9/10 for usefulness, 8/10 for desirability, 8/10 for clarity and 9/10 for credibility. Using their guidance and feedback, we produced a three-and-a-half-minute video animation. The video was uploaded on YouTube, has since been translated into two languages, and viewed over 12,000 times to date. Conclusions: Drawing on user-centred design methods provided a structured and transparent approach to the development of our SAV. Involving members of the public enhanced the credibility and usefulness of the resource. Future work could explore involving the public from the outset to identify key messages in developing KT resources explaining methodological topics. This study describes the systematic development of a KT resource with limited resources and provides transferrable learnings for others wishing to do similar.

COSUTI: A Core Outcome Set (COS) for Interventions for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) in Adults.

Background: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common presentations of bacterial infections in the outpatient setting. The variation of outcomes reported in trials to assess the most effective treatment interventions for uncomplicated UTIs has meant that comparing and synthesising the outcomes across trials is challenging and limits the reliability of evidence which would otherwise inform healthcare decisions. Objective: Develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for interventions for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in otherwise healthy adults. Methods: The COS development consisted of three phases: (1) A systematic review to identify outcomes reported in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of any interventions for the treatment of uncomplicated UTI in otherwise healthy adults; (2) Outcomes identified in the systematic review were prioritised in an online 3-round modified Delphi survey with healthcare practitioners (n = 68), researchers (n = 5), and people who have experienced or cared for someone experiencing a UTI (n = 180); (3) An online consensus meeting to determine the final COS with healthcare practitioners and policymakers (n = 9), researchers (n = 4), and people who have experienced or cared for someone experiencing a UTI (n = 7). Results: We identified a large number of outcomes. Through the use of robust consensus methods, those outcomes were reduced to a core set of six outcomes that should, at a minimum, be measured and reported in randomised trials and systematic reviews of interventions treating uncomplicated UTIs in adults.

Core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy: a qualitative study with parents.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the outcomes considered important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia in high-income and low- to middle-income countries (LMiCs), as part of the outcome-identification process in developing a core outcome set (COS) for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. DESIGN: A qualitative study involving 25 semistructured interviews with parents or other family members (caregivers) of infants who were diagnosed with, and treated for, neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia. SETTING: Interviews were conducted in high-income countries (HiCs) (n=11) by Zoom video conferencing software and in LMiCs (n=14) by phone or face to face. FINDINGS: Parents identified 54 outcomes overall, which mapped to 16 outcome domains. The domains identified were neurological outcomes, respiratory outcomes, gastrointestinal outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, motor development, cognitive development, development (psychosocial), development (special senses), cognitive development, development (speech and social), other organ outcomes, survival/living outcomes, long-term disability, hospitalisation, parent-reported outcomes and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the outcomes that parents of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy have identified as the most important, to be considered in the process of developing a COS for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. We also provide description of the processes employed to ensure the inclusion of participants from LMiCs as well as HiCs.

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions. RESULTS: Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results. CONCLUSION: The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The People's Trial: supporting the public's understanding of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People's Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial. METHODS: Using a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People's Trial. RESULTS: Over 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People's Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?' We report the processes of The People's Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned. CONCLUSION: The People's Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019.

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection clinical trials.

Background: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) are amongst the most frequent infections presenting in the outpatient setting. A growing number of clinical trials are assessing the most effective treatment interventions for uncomplicated UTI. Due to the heterogeneity of the outcomes reported in these trials, however, comparing these outcomes is challenging. Objectives: Identify the core outcomes that have been reported in trials and systematic reviews of interventions treating uncomplicated UTI in adults. Methods: We conducted a systematic search for core outcomes used to evaluate treatments of UTIs. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and Embase. One researcher independently screened each article for inclusion, and the Core Outcome Set for treatment of Urinary Tract Infections (COSUTI) team acted as second reviewers. All included articles were screened by two reviewers. All outcomes were extracted verbatim, and similar outcomes were grouped into domains and subdomains. Results: In total, 334 outcomes were reported across 41 papers, the average number of outcomes reported being 8. Outcomes were categorized across 18 domains, the majority of which were related to clinical cure outcomes. Many outcomes varied in the timepoints within which the outcome was measured and reported. Conclusions: Comparing the outcomes of trials investigating uncomplicated UTI treatment remains challenging due to the difference in outcomes currently reported. Consistency of reporting of outcomes would be improved by developing a minimum number of consistent outcomes that should be reported in all trials.

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol.

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders' perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

COHESION: core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy (protocol).

BACKGROUND: Neonatal encephalopathy is a complex syndrome in infants that predominantly affects the brain and other organs. The leading cause is a lack of oxygen in the blood reaching the brain. Neonatal encephalopathy can result in mortality or complications later in life, including seizures, movement disorders and cerebral palsy. Treatment options for neonatal encephalopathy are limited mainly to therapeutic hypothermia, although other potential treatments are emerging. However, evaluations of the effectiveness of treatments are challenging because of heterogeneity and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported between trials. In this paper, we detail how we will develop a core outcome set to standardise outcomes measured and reported upon for interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. METHODS: We will systematically review the literature to identify outcomes reported previously in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials. We will identify outcomes important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with and who have received treatment for neonatal encephalopathy. We will do this by conducting in person or by video teleconferencing interviews with parents or caregivers in high-income and low- to middle-income countries. Stakeholders with expertise in neonatal encephalopathy (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online Delphi survey using either a three-round Delphi survey or a "Real-Time" Delphi survey to which stakeholders will be allocated at random. Consensus meetings will take place by video conference to allow for an international group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final core outcome set (COS). DISCUSSION: More research is needed on treatments for neonatal encephalopathy. Standardising outcomes measured and reported in evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy will improve evidence synthesis and improve results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analysis in this area. Overall, this COS will allow for improved treatments to be identified, heterogeneity in research to be reduced, and overall patient care to be enhanced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1270 .

Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Delphi method is used in a wide variety of settings as a method of building consensus on important issues. Traditionally, the Delphi method uses multiple rounds of a survey to allow for feedback of other participants' survey responses in between rounds. By informing participants about how others answer a question or prioritise specific topics, it allows for diverse opinions to inform the consensus process. For this reason, the Delphi method is popular as a consensus building approach in developing core outcome sets (COS), i.e. the minimum agreed set of standardised outcomes that should be measured and reported in studies on a specific health condition. In a COS setting, participants prioritise the importance of outcomes for inclusion in a COS. This usually involves participating in multiple rounds of a survey that can span several weeks or months. Challenges with participant retention have been highlighted in previous COS. We will compare a three-round with a Real-Time Delphi approach on prioritised outcomes. This trial is embedded within the COHESION study which is developing a COS for interventions treating neonatal encephalopathy. METHODS: One hundred and eighty stakeholders (parents/caregivers of infants diagnosed and treated with neonatal encephalopathy, healthcare providers and researchers) will be randomised using stratified randomisation to take part in either the Multi-Round or Real-Time Delphi. Stakeholders will rate the importance of the same set of outcomes in both arms. We will compare the prioritised outcomes at the end of both surveys as well as other parameters such as feedback, initial condition and iteration effects. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence to inform decisions on the use of Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi survey methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04471103 . Registered on 14 July 2020.

Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison to not reading a book in bed? The People's Trial-an online, pragmatic, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The best way of comparing healthcare treatments is through a randomised trial. In a randomised trial, we compare something (a treatment or intervention) to something else, often another treatment. Who gets what is decided at random, meaning everyone has an equal chance of getting any of the treatments. This means any differences found can be put down to the treatment received rather than other things, such as where people live, or health conditions they might have. The People's Trial aimed to help the public better understand randomised trials by inviting them to design and carry out a trial. The question chosen by the public for The People's Trial was: 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep, in comparison to not reading a book in bed?' This paper describes that trial, called 'The Reading Trial'. METHODS: The Reading Trial was an online, randomised trial. Members of the public were invited to take part through social media campaigns. People were asked to either read a book in bed before going to sleep (intervention group) or not read a book in bed before going to sleep (control group). We asked everyone to do this for 7 days, after which they measured their sleep quality. RESULTS: During December 2019, a total of 991 people took part in The Reading Trial, half (496 (50%)) in the intervention group and half (495 (50%)) in the control group. Not everyone finished the trial: 127 (25.6%) people in the intervention group and 90 (18.18%) people in the control group. Of those providing data, 156/369 (42%) people in the intervention group felt their sleep improved, compared to 112/405 (28%) of those in the control group, a difference of 14%. When we consider how certain we are of this finding, we estimate that, in The Reading Trial, sleep improved for between 8 and 22% more people in the intervention group compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Reading a book in bed before going to sleep improved sleep quality, compared to not reading a book in bed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818. Registered on 4 December 2019.

OptiBIRTH: a cluster randomised trial of a complex intervention to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting the safety of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC), rates are low in many countries. METHODS: OptiBIRTH investigated the effects of a woman-centred intervention designed to increase VBAC rates through an unblinded cluster randomised trial in 15 maternity units with VBAC rates < 35% in Germany, Ireland and Italy. Sites were matched in pairs or triplets based on annual birth numbers and VBAC rate, and randomised, 1:1 or 2:1, intervention versus control, following trial registration. The intervention involved evidence-based education of clinicians and women with one previous caesarean section (CS), appointment of opinion leaders, audit/peer review, and joint discussions by women and clinicians. Control sites provided usual care. Primary outcome was annual hospital-level VBAC rates before the trial (2012) versus final year of the trial (2016). Between April 2014 and October 2015, 2002 women were recruited (intervention 1195, control 807), with mode-of-birth data available for 1940 women. RESULTS: The OptiBIRTH intervention was feasible and safe across hospital settings in three countries. There was no statistically significant difference in the change in the proportion of women having a VBAC between intervention sites (25.6% in 2012 to 25.1% in 2016) and control sites (18.3 to 22.3%) (odds ratio adjusted for differences between intervention and control groups (2012) and for homogeneity in VBAC rates at sites in the countries: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.14, p = 0.32 based on 5674 women (2012) and 5284 (2016) with outcome data. Among recruited women with birth data, 4/1147 perinatal deaths > 24 weeks gestation occurred in the intervention group (0.34%) and 4/782 in the control group (0.51%), and two uterine ruptures (one per group), a rate of 1:1000. CONCLUSIONS: Changing clinical practice takes time. As elective repeat CS is the most common reason for CS in multiparous women, interventions that are feasible and safe and that have been shown to lead to decreasing repeat CS, should be promoted. Continued research to refine the best way of promoting VBAC is essential. This may best be done using an implementation science approach that can modify evidence-based interventions in response to changing clinical circumstances. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The OptiBIRTH trial was registered on 3/4/2013. Trial registration number ISRCTN10612254.

Can learning about trials be child's play? A qualitative exploration of the 'Schools Teaching Awareness of Randomised Trials' (START) initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Health Research Board-Trials Methodology Research Network (HRB-TMRN) celebrates International Clinical Trials Day with the help of the younger members of our community through the Network's 'Schools Teaching Awareness of Randomised Trials (START)' initiative. START seeks to increase public awareness of randomised trials in Ireland. Launched in 2016, it asks children (8-12 years old) to conduct and report their very own fun randomised trial. The study reported in this paper sought to explore children and teachers perceptions and experiences of the START initiative. METHODS: We conducted eight, one-to one interviews with teachers and eight focus groups with 61 children who took part in the 2018 START initiative. Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed and the data analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: The findings of this study highlight the benefits of participating in START and the areas of the initiative that required further attention. Teachers and children recalled the benefits of experiential learning associated with START and learning by doing encouraged a fun way of engaging with trial processes. By recalling all aspects of planning, conducting and reporting their trial, the children in this study demonstrated their awareness of the trial processes. The teachers suggested that START provides a valuable framework to contribute to key aspects of the primary school curriculum in Ireland. The experiences of these participants also provided recommendation for improving the programme for future START participants. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing public awareness and understanding of randomised trials can help increase public engagement in trials. By educating children about the importance of trials and supporting them to 'learn by doing' by carrying out their own trial, the START initiative can contribute substantially to children's awareness and understanding of trial processes. Given that children are the public, the patients and the researchers of the future, initiatives such as START deserve attention.

In the preparation and administration of intravenous medicines, what are the best practice standards that healthcare professionals need to follow to ensure patient safety? Protocol for a systematic review.

Introduction: Intravenous therapy and medicines (IVTM) are the most common invasive interventions in use in healthcare. Prescribed IVTM play an essential role in the treatment of illness, management of chronic conditions and in maintaining health and wellbeing. The intravenous (IV) route is the administration of concentrated medications (diluted or undiluted) directly into peripherally or centrally inserted vascular access devices. Medication safety is a key priority and best practice standards are required to guide the safe preparation and administration of IVTM. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of the literature pertaining to the preparation and administration of intravenous therapy and medicines. Our search will include studies concerned with the preparation and/or administration of IVTM via peripheral or central vascular access devices. We will be guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) in this review. Literature will include all trial designs, national/international guidelines, and expert consensus opinion made available in English from 2009 to present day. Conclusions: We will synthesise the evidence concerning safe and effective preparation and administration of intravenous therapy and medicines to inform the development of a national guideline for healthcare professionals in Ireland. The availability of up-to-date, contemporaneous evidence-based practice standards will ensure quality and safety for service-users. Registration:  This study has been submitted to PROSPERO and we are awaiting confirmation of registration.

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study.

BACKGROUND: One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. METHODS: This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. RESULTS: A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The 'Top 10' of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was 'What motivates a participant's decision to complete a clinical trial?' The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie . CONCLUSION: The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Preference of birth mode and postnatal health related quality of life after one previous caesarean section in three European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Women who have had a caesarean section may have a preference for birth mode during their subsequent pregnancy, either 'vaginal birth after caesarean' (VBAC) or 'elective repeat caesarean section' (ERCS). A mismatch between the preferred and actual birth mode may result in an impaired postnatal Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). This study examined the associations between antenatal birth mode preferences, the actual birth mode and postnatal HRQoL in women with one previous caesarean section in three European countries. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal survey, as a part of a cluster randomised trial (OptiBIRTH) SETTING: Fifteen maternity units in three European countries: Germany (5), Ireland (5) and Italy (5). PARTICIPANTS: Women (≥ aged 18 years) living in Germany, Ireland and Italy with one previous caesarean section. The sample consisted of 862 women with complete antenatal and postpartum data. MEASUREMENTS: Women's preference for birth mode after one previous caesarean section was assessed at inclusion to the trial, and HRQoL was assessed antenatally and at three months postpartum using the Short-Form Six-Dimension health survey. Based on women's preferences and actual birth mode six groups were determined: "match VBAC-VBAC" (preference for vaginal birth, actual mode of birth vaginal birth), "match ERCS-ERCS" (preference for caesarean section, actual mode of birth elective repeat caesarean section), "match ERCS-EMCS" (preference for caesarean section, actual mode of birth emergency repeat caesarean section), "mismatch VBAC-ERCS" (preference for vaginal birth, actual mode of birth elective repeat caesarean section), "mismatch VBAC-EMCS" (preference for vaginal birth, actual mode of birth emergency repeat caesarean section) and "no preference". Associations between the preferred and actual birth mode were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses. FINDINGS: Women with preference for vaginal birth but who gave birth by elective repeat caesarean section (mismatch VBAC-ERCS) had a lower postnatal HRQoL compared to women with a preference for vaginal birth who actually had a birth vaginally (match VBAC-VBAC, p = 0.02). Poor antenatal HRQoL scores (p < 0.01) and maternal readmission postpartum (p = 0.03) are cofounding factors for poorer postnatal HRQoL scores. KEY CONCLUSIONS: The results show that women with a preference for a vaginal birth who gave birth by an elective repeat caesarean section had a significantly lower HRQoL at three months postnatal. The long-term consequences and psychological health of women who do not achieve a vaginal birth after caesarean require further consideration and research. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Attention should be given to the long-term impact of a mismatch in preferred and actual mode on the psychological health of women.

A Core Outcome Set for the prevention and treatment of fetal GROwth restriction: deVeloping Endpoints: the COSGROVE study.

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction refers to a fetus that does not reach its genetically predetermined growth potential. It is well-recognized that growth-restricted fetuses are at increased risk of both short- and long-term adverse outcomes. Systematic evaluation of the evidence from clinical trials of fetal growth restriction is often difficult because of variation in the outcomes that are measured and reported. The development of core outcome sets for fetal growth restriction studies would enable future trials to measure similar meaningful outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop core outcome sets for trials of prevention or treatment of fetal growth restriction. STUDY DESIGN: This was a Delphi consensus study. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify outcomes that were reported in studies of prevention or treatment of fetal growth restriction. All outcomes were presented for prioritization to key stakeholders (135 healthcare providers, 68 researchers/academics, and 35 members of the public) in 3 rounds of online Delphi surveys. A priori consensus criteria were used to reach agreement on the final outcomes for inclusion in the core outcome set at a face-to-face meeting with 5 healthcare providers, 5 researchers/academics, and 6 maternity service users. RESULTS: In total, 22 outcomes were included in the final core outcome set. These outcomes were grouped under 4 domains: maternal (n=4), fetal (n=1), neonatal (n=12), and childhood (n=5). CONCLUSION: The Core Outcome Set for the prevention and treatment of fetal GROwth restriction: deVeloping Endpoints study identified a large number of potentially relevant outcomes and then reached consensus on those factors that, as a minimum, should be measured and reported in all future trials of prevention or treatment of fetal growth restriction. This will enable future trials to measure similar meaningful outcomes and to ensure that findings from different studies can be compared and combined.