Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards. METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings. RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use. CONCLUSION: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials.

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

Core Outcome Set for Necrotizing Enterocolitis Treatment Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Variability in outcome reporting in necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) treatment trials hinders conducting meta-analyses and implementing novel treatments. We aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for NEC treatment trials including outcome measures most relevant to patients and physicians, from NEC diagnosis to adulthood. METHODS: Clinicians and/or researchers from low-middle- and high-income countries were approached based on their scientific contributions to NEC literature, and patients and parents through local organizations. We presented participants with 45 outcomes used in NEC research, identified through a systematic review. To achieve consensus, outcomes were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 in 3 online Delphi rounds, and discussed at a final consensus meeting. RESULTS: Seventy-one participants from 25 countries completed all Delphi rounds, including 15 patients and family representatives. Thirteen outcomes reached consensus in one of the stakeholder groups and were included in the consensus meeting, 6 outcomes reached consensus in both groups. Twenty-seven participants from both high- and low-middle-income countries attended the online consensus meeting, including family representatives and NEC patients. After discussion and a final vote, 5 outcomes reached consensus to be included: mortality, NEC-related mortality, short bowel syndrome, quality of life, and neurodevelopmental impairment. CONCLUSIONS: This NEC COS includes 5 predominantly long-term outcomes agreed upon by clinicians, patients, and family representatives. Use of this international COS will help standardize outcome selection in clinical trials, ensure these are relevant to those most affected by NEC care, and, ultimately, improve the care of infants with NEC.

Corticosteroids for the prevention and treatment of bronchopulmonary dysplasia: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains an important complication of prematurity. Pulmonary inflammation plays a central role in the pathogenesis of BPD, explaining the rationale for investigating postnatal corticosteroids. Multiple systematic reviews (SRs) have summarised the evidence from numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating different aspects of administrating postnatal corticosteroids. Besides beneficial effects on the outcome of death or BPD, potential short- and long-term harms have been reported. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this overview was to summarise and appraise the evidence from SRs regarding the efficacy and safety of postnatal corticosteroids in preterm infants at risk of developing BPD. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Epistemonikos for SRs in April 2023. We included all SRs assessing any form of postnatal corticosteroid administration in preterm populations with the objective of ameliorating pulmonary disease. All regimens and comparisons were included. Two review authors independently checked the eligibility of the SRs comparing corticosteroids with placebo, and corticosteroids with different routes of administration and regimens. The included outcomes, considered key drivers in the decision to administer postnatal corticosteroids, were the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA), its individual components, long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae, sepsis, and gastrointestinal tract perforation. We independently assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs by using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tools. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We provided a narrative description of the characteristics, methodological quality, and results of the included SRs. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine SRs (seven Cochrane, two non-Cochrane) containing 87 RCTs, 1 follow-up study, and 9419 preterm infants, investigating the effects of postnatal corticosteroids to prevent or treat BPD. The quality of the included SRs according to AMSTAR 2 varied from high to critically low. Risk of bias according to ROBIS was low. The certainty of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to moderate. Early initiated systemic dexamethasone (< seven days after birth) likely has a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.95; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 10 to 41; I2 = 39%; 17 studies; 2791 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and on BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82; NNTB 13, 95% CI 9 to 21; I2 = 39%; 17 studies; 2791 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Early initiated systemic hydrocortisone may also have a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; NNTB 18, 95% CI 9 to 594; I2 = 43%; 9 studies; 1376 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits are likely accompanied by harmful effects like cerebral palsy or neurosensory disability (dexamethasone) or gastrointestinal perforation (both dexamethasone and hydrocortisone). Late initiated systemic dexamethasone (≥ seven days after birth) may have a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 9; I2 = 61%; 12 studies; 553 infants; low-certainty evidence), mostly contributed to by a beneficial effect on BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87; NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 13; I2 = 14%; 12 studies; 553 infants; low-certainty evidence). No harmful side effects were shown in the outcomes chosen as key drivers to the decision to start or withhold late systemic dexamethasone. No effects, either beneficial or harmful, were found in the subgroup meta-analyses of late hydrocortisone studies. Early initiated inhaled corticosteroids probably have a beneficial effect on death and BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; NNTB 19, 95% CI not applicable; I2 = 0%; 6 studies; 1285 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), with no apparent adverse effects shown in the SRs. In contrast, late initiated inhaled corticosteroids do not appear to have any benefits or harms. Endotracheal instillation of corticosteroids (budesonide) with surfactant as a carrier likely has a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 381 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and on BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. No evidence of harmful effects was found. There was little evidence for effects of different starting doses or timing of systemic corticosteroids on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA, but potential adverse effects were observed for some comparisons. Lowering the dose might result in a more unfavourable balance of benefits and harms. Moderately early initiated systemic corticosteroids, compared with early systemic corticosteroids, may result in a higher incidence of BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. Pulse dosing instead of continuous dosing may have a negative effect on death and BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. We found no differences for the comparisons of inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview summarises the evidence of nine SRs investigating the effect of postnatal corticosteroids in preterm infants at risk for BPD. Late initiated (≥ seven days after birth) systemic administration of dexamethasone is considered an effective intervention to reduce the risk of BPD in infants with a high risk profile for BPD, based on a favourable balance between benefits and harms. Endotracheal instillation of corticosteroids (budesonide) with surfactant as a carrier is a promising intervention, based on the beneficial effect on desirable outcomes without (so far) negative side effects. Pending results of ongoing large, multicentre RCTs investigating both short- and long-term effects, endotracheal instillation of corticosteroids (budesonide) with surfactant as a carrier is not appropriate for clinical practice at present. Early initiated (< seven days after birth) systemic dexamethasone and hydrocortisone and late initiated (≥ seven days after birth) hydrocortisone are considered ineffective interventions, because of an unfavourable balance between benefits and harms. No conclusions are possible regarding early and late inhaled corticosteroids, as more research is needed.

A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, projects to develop reporting guidelines have attempted to integrate the perspectives of patients and public members. Best practices for patient and public involvement (PPI) in such projects have not yet been established. We recently developed an extension of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), to be used for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for OMIs 2024. Patients and public members formed a small but impactful stakeholder group. We critically evaluated the PPI component in this project and developed recommendations for conducting PPI when developing reporting guidelines. MAIN TEXT: A patient partner was an integral research team member at the project development and grant application stage. Once the project started, five patient and public contributors (PPCs) were recruited to participate in the Delphi study; three PPCs contributed to subsequent steps. We collected quantitative feedback through surveys; qualitative feedback was garnered through a focus group discussion after the Delphi study and through debrief meetings after subsequent project activities. Feedback was thematically combined with reflections from the research team, and was predominantly positive. The following themes emerged: importance of PPI partnership, number of PPCs involved, onboarding, design of Delphi surveys, flexibility in the process, complexity of PPI in methodological research, and power imbalances. Impacts of PPI on the content and presentation of the reporting guideline were evident, and reciprocal learning between PPCs and the research team occurred throughout the project. Lessons learned were translated into 17 recommendations for future projects. CONCLUSION: Integrating PPI in the development of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 was feasible and considered valuable by PPCs and the research team. Our approach can be applied by others wishing to integrate PPI in developing reporting guidelines.

Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children.

BACKGROUND: Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C). METHODS: The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations. DISCUSSION: SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).

Assessing the quality and value of metabolic chart data for capturing core outcomes for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Generating rigorous evidence to inform care for rare diseases requires reliable, sustainable, and longitudinal measurement of priority outcomes. Having developed a core outcome set for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency, we aimed to assess the feasibility of prospective measurement of these core outcomes during routine metabolic clinic visits. METHODS: We used existing cohort data abstracted from charts of 124 children diagnosed with MCAD deficiency who participated in a Canadian study which collected data from birth to a maximum of 11 years of age to investigate the frequency of clinic visits and quality of metabolic chart data for selected outcomes. We recorded all opportunities to collect outcomes from the medical chart as a function of visit rate to the metabolic clinic, by treatment centre and by child age. We applied a data quality framework to evaluate data based on completeness, conformance, and plausibility for four core MCAD outcomes: emergency department use, fasting time, metabolic decompensation, and death. RESULTS: The frequency of metabolic clinic visits decreased with increasing age, from a rate of 2.8 visits per child per year (95% confidence interval, 2.3-3.3) among infants 2 to 6 months, to 1.0 visit per child per year (95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.2) among those ≥ 5 years of age. Rates of emergency department visits followed anticipated trends by child age. Supplemental findings suggested that some emergency visits occur outside of the metabolic care treatment centre but are not captured. Recommended fasting times were updated relatively infrequently in patients' metabolic charts. Episodes of metabolic decompensation were identifiable but required an operational definition based on acute manifestations most commonly recorded in the metabolic chart. Deaths occurred rarely in these patients and quality of mortality data was not evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities to record core outcomes at the metabolic clinic occur at least annually for children with MCAD deficiency. Methods to comprehensively capture emergency care received at outside institutions are needed. To reduce substantial heterogeneous recording of core outcome across treatment centres, improved documentation standards are required for recording of recommended fasting times and a consensus definition for metabolic decompensations needs to be developed and implemented.

Diagnosis and management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a 2023 update from the Canadian Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH) Collaborative sought to make its existing clinical practice guideline, published in 2018, into a 'living document'. DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Critical appraisal of CDH literature adhering to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Evidence accumulated between 1 January 2017 and 30 August 2022 was analysed to inform changes to existing or the development of new CDH care recommendations. Strength of consensus was also determined using a modified Delphi process among national experts in the field. RESULTS: Of the 3868 articles retrieved in our search that covered the 15 areas of CDH care, 459 underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 103 articles were used to inform 20 changes to existing recommendations, which included aspects related to prenatal diagnosis, echocardiographic evaluation, pulmonary hypertension management, surgical readiness criteria, the type of surgical repair and long-term health surveillance. Fifteen new CDH care recommendations were also created using this evidence, with most related to the management of pain and the provision of analgesia and neuromuscular blockade for patients with CDH. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 Canadian CDH Collaborative's clinical practice guideline update provides a management framework for infants and children with CDH based on the best available evidence and expert consensus.

A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices.

OBJECTIVE: To identify practices that add value to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research and reduce research waste. STUDY DESIGN: In order to categorize the contributions of members of Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health network, we developed a novel Child Health Improving Research Practices (CHIRP) framework comprised of 5 domains meant to counteract avoidable child health research waste and improve quality: 1) address research questions relevant to children, their families, clinicians, and researchers; 2) apply appropriate research design, conduct and analysis; 3) ensure efficient research oversight and regulation; 4) Provide accessible research protocols and reports; and 5) develop unbiased and usable research reports, including 17 responsible research practice recommendations. All child health research relevant publications by the 48 original StaR standards' authors over the last decade were identified, and main topic areas were categorized using this framework. RESULTS: A total of 247 publications were included in the final sample: 100 publications (41%) in domain 1 (3 recommendations), 77 publications (31%) in domain 2 (3), 35 publications (14%) in domain 3 (4), 20 publications (8%) in domain 4 (4), and 15 publications (6%) in domain 5 (3). We identified readily implementable "responsible" research practices to counter child health research waste and improve quality, especially in the areas of patients and families' engagement throughout the research process, developing Core Outcome Sets, and addressing ethics and regulatory oversight issues. CONCLUSION: While most of the practices are readily implementable, increased awareness of methodological issues and wider guideline uptake is needed to improve child health research. The CHIRP Framework can be used to guide responsible research practices that add value to child health research.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

Identifying effect modifiers of systemic hydrocortisone treatment initiated 7-14 days after birth in ventilated very preterm infants on long-term outcome: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To explore clinical effect modifiers of systemic hydrocortisone in ventilated very preterm infants for survival and neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years' corrected age (CA). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Dutch and Belgian neonatal intensive care units. PATIENTS: Infants born <30 weeks' gestational age (GA), ventilator-dependent in the second week of postnatal life. INTERVENTION: Infants were randomly assigned to systemic hydrocortisone (cumulative dose 72.5 mg/kg; n=182) or placebo (n=190). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The composite of death or neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 2 years' CA and its components. Candidate effect modifiers (GA, small for GA, respiratory index, sex, multiple births, risk of moderate/severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia or death) were analysed using regression models with interaction terms and subpopulation treatment effect pattern plots. RESULTS: The composite outcome was available in 356 (96.0%) of 371 patients (one consent withdrawn). For this outcome, treatment effect heterogeneity was seen across GA subgroups (<27 weeks: hydrocortisone (n=141) vs placebo (n=156), 54.6% vs 66.2%; OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.98); ≥27 weeks: hydrocortisone (n=30) vs placebo (n=31), 66.7% vs 45.2%; OR 2.43 (95% CI 0.86 to 6.85); p=0.02 for interaction). This effect was also found for the component death (<27 weeks: 20.1% vs 32.1%; OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.90); ≥27 weeks: 28.1% vs 16.1%; OR 2.04 (95% CI 0.60 to 6.95); p=0.049 for interaction) but not for the component NDI. No differential treatment effects were observed across other subgroups. CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis suggests that in infants <27 weeks' GA, systemic hydrocortisone may improve the outcome death or NDI, mainly driven by its component death. There was insufficient evidence for other selected candidate effect modifiers.

Transparent Reporting-SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C Pediatric Updates.

This Viewpoint discusses the development of pediatric-specific reporting guidelines that facilitate transparent reporting of published pediatric clinical trials.