Developing a core outcome set for the treatment of pregnant women with pregestational diabetes-a study protocol.
Core outcome set
Intervention
Pregestational diabetes mellitus
Pregnancy
Randomised controlled trials
Type 1 diabetes mellitus
Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Dec 2020
11 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
10
05
2020
accepted:
16
11
2020
entrez:
14
12
2020
pubmed:
15
12
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes including increased rates of caesarean section birth, macrosomia, congenital malformation, prematurity, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and stillbirth. As a result, there has been an increase in interventions to improve outcomes in both mother and infant. To date, meaningful comparisons between these studies are limited due to heterogeneity in outcome selection and reporting. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. The study consists of three steps. The first step is a systematic review of the literature to assess outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. The second step is a three round, online Delphi survey to prioritise these outcomes. In this step, stakeholders (including women with PGDM, healthcare workers, researchers and policymakers) will be asked to rank the importance of outcomes for inclusion in the COS using a 9-point Likert type scale. Outcomes that meet the inclusion criteria after completion of the Delphi surveys will be brought to the consensus meeting. The consensus meeting will be the third and final step, where the COS will be finalised. The consensus meeting will include members from each stakeholder group. This paper describes the process used to develop a COS for the reporting of studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in pregnant women with PGDM. The COS will enable greater comparison between and information synthesis across RCTs in the treatment of PGDM. In addition, this COS will also help improve trial reporting and minimise research waste by prioritising the collection and reporting of outcomes that matter to all relevant stakeholder groups. This COS has been registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1425 ) on the 4th of November 2019. The systematic review component of this study has also been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020173549 ).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes including increased rates of caesarean section birth, macrosomia, congenital malformation, prematurity, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and stillbirth. As a result, there has been an increase in interventions to improve outcomes in both mother and infant. To date, meaningful comparisons between these studies are limited due to heterogeneity in outcome selection and reporting. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM.
METHODS
METHODS
The study consists of three steps. The first step is a systematic review of the literature to assess outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. The second step is a three round, online Delphi survey to prioritise these outcomes. In this step, stakeholders (including women with PGDM, healthcare workers, researchers and policymakers) will be asked to rank the importance of outcomes for inclusion in the COS using a 9-point Likert type scale. Outcomes that meet the inclusion criteria after completion of the Delphi surveys will be brought to the consensus meeting. The consensus meeting will be the third and final step, where the COS will be finalised. The consensus meeting will include members from each stakeholder group.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes the process used to develop a COS for the reporting of studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in pregnant women with PGDM. The COS will enable greater comparison between and information synthesis across RCTs in the treatment of PGDM. In addition, this COS will also help improve trial reporting and minimise research waste by prioritising the collection and reporting of outcomes that matter to all relevant stakeholder groups.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
This COS has been registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1425 ) on the 4th of November 2019. The systematic review component of this study has also been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020173549 ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33308263
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04910-1
pii: 10.1186/s13063-020-04910-1
pmc: PMC7730783
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1017Références
Diabetologia. 2017 Jul;60(7):1190-1196
pubmed: 28409213
Clin Diabetes. 2015 Oct;33(4):169-74
pubmed: 26487790
Diabet Med. 2010 Apr;27(4):431-5
pubmed: 20536515
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 14;9(11):e030574
pubmed: 31727651
Lancet. 2017 Nov 25;390(10110):2347-2359
pubmed: 28923465
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 18;375(7):644-54
pubmed: 27532830
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 May;285(5):1225-9
pubmed: 22083313
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018 Mar;20(3):180-188
pubmed: 29470094
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012 Mar;94(3):134-40
pubmed: 22371321
Trials. 2013 Mar 12;14:70
pubmed: 23497540
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 May;17(5):349-54
pubmed: 25629547
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 25;6(1):e009494
pubmed: 26810997
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Apr;101(4):1807-15
pubmed: 26918293
Trials. 2019 Jan 5;20(1):9
pubmed: 30611300
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 03;11(3):e0150297
pubmed: 26937965
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):395-400
pubmed: 21194891
Diabetologia. 2011 Nov;54(11):2771-8
pubmed: 21866407
Trials. 2015 Aug 14;16:356
pubmed: 26272593
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jul;41(7):1391-1399
pubmed: 29535135
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Apr;101(4):1598-605
pubmed: 26820715
Diabetologia. 2020 Jun;63(6):1120-1127
pubmed: 32193573
Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 20;5:11
pubmed: 26792080
Diabet Med. 2018 Apr;35(4):430-435
pubmed: 29352491
Diabetologia. 2014 Apr;57(4):681-9
pubmed: 24434960
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:6878263
pubmed: 28386562
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
J Diabetes Complications. 2014 Jan-Feb;28(1):29-34
pubmed: 24094665
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 24;12(4):e0175914
pubmed: 28437461
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Nov 02;67(43):1201-1207
pubmed: 30383743
Trials. 2019 Feb 11;20(1):116
pubmed: 30744706
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2015 Oct;31(7):680-90
pubmed: 25663190
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Jan;27(1):7-13
pubmed: 23617228
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Feb;103(2):176-85
pubmed: 24300020
Diabetes Care. 2014 Jun;37(6):1590-6
pubmed: 24705609