Transforming Maternity Care Collaborative, Griffith University, Logan Campus, Meadowbrook, Australia.
Women, Newborn, and Children's Services, Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Australia.
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2021 Mar;66(2):185-202. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.13195. Epub 2021 Feb 10.
Variation in outcomes reported in maternity-related clinical trials and practice stifles data synthesis and contributes to ineffective or harmful treatments and interventions. Variation can be addressed using core outcome sets (COSs), minimum agreed sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care. This scoping review identified studies that developed maternity-related COSs; evaluated the extent, scope, quality, and consistency of outcomes across similar COSs; and identified current gaps in evidence.
A multifaceted search of 2 COS registers (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials, Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn Health), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement website, electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL), and hand search was conducted. Published, English-language studies describing maternal and neonatal COSs for any health condition and published from inception to January 2020 were included. COS development process was evaluated against recently published COS Standards for Development: scope, stakeholder involvement, and consensus process.
Thirty-two articles relating to 26 COSs were included (maternal: 18 articles that addressed 17 COSs; neonatal: 14 articles that addressed 9 COSs) and covered a range of obstetric and neonatal conditions. COSs were published between 2006 and 2020, 58% since 2017. Maternal COSs included more outcomes (median, 17; range, 50) than neonatal COSs (median, 8; range, 20). Overlap in COSs was seen for maternity care and gestational diabetes. Overlap in outcomes was seen across similar COSs, which were mostly inconsistent or poorly defined. No included COS met all minimum standards for development. Two COSs extended recommendations for how and when to measure outcomes.
Growth in COS development in the last 3 years signifies increasing commitment to address variation and improve data synthesis. Although the quality of the development process has improved in the last 3 years, there is a need for improvement. This article presents an urgent need to minimize overlap in outcomes and standardize outcome measurement, case definitions, and timing of measurement between COSs.
在与产妇相关的临床试验和实践中,结果的差异报告阻碍了数据的综合分析,导致治疗和干预措施无效或有害。通过核心结局集(COS)可以解决这种差异,COS 是一组经过最少共识的结局,应在特定健康或医疗保健领域的所有临床试验中进行测量和报告。本范围综述确定了制定与产妇相关的 COS 的研究;评估了相似的 COS 之间结局的范围、广度、质量和一致性;并确定了当前证据中的差距。
对 2 个 COS 登记处(有效性试验中的核心结局测量、妇女和新生儿健康中的核心结局)、国际健康结局测量联盟网站、电子数据库(MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL)和手工搜索进行了多方面的搜索。纳入了描述任何健康状况的产妇和新生儿 COS 的已发表的英文研究,并于 2020 年 1 月之前发表。根据最近发布的 COS 开发标准评估了 COS 开发过程:范围、利益相关者参与和共识过程。
共纳入 32 篇文章,涉及 26 个 COS(产妇:18 篇文章涉及 17 个 COS;新生儿:14 篇文章涉及 9 个 COS),涵盖了一系列产科和新生儿疾病。COS 发表于 2006 年至 2020 年之间,自 2017 年以来,58%的 COS 发表于该时期。产妇 COS 中包含的结局更多(中位数为 17;范围为 50),而新生儿 COS 中包含的结局较少(中位数为 8;范围为 20)。在产妇护理和妊娠期糖尿病方面,COS 之间存在重叠。在相似的 COS 中也可以看到结局的重叠,但大多不一致或定义不明确。没有纳入的 COS 完全符合最低发展标准。有两个 COS 扩展了关于如何以及何时测量结局的建议。
过去 3 年来,COS 开发的增长表明越来越致力于解决差异和改善数据综合分析。尽管过去 3 年来,COS 开发过程的质量有所提高,但仍有改进的空间。本文提出了一个紧迫的需要,即最大限度地减少结局的重叠,并在 COS 之间标准化结局的测量、病例定义和测量时间。