| 1. |
- Hobbins, John C., et al.
(författare)
-
Antibiotic prophylaxis before amniocentesis
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Prenatal Diagnosis. - : Wiley. - 1097-0223 .- 0197-3851. ; 31:12, s. 1213-1214
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- Smith, Valerie, et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol for the development of a salutogenic intrapartum core outcome set (SIPCOS)
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMC Medical Research Methodology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2288. ; 17:61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Maternity intrapartum care research and clinical care more often focus on outcomes that minimise or prevent adverse health rather than on what constitutes positive health and wellbeing (salutogenesis). This was highlighted recently in a systematic review of reviews of intrapartum reported outcomes where only 8% of 1648 individual outcomes, from 102 systematic reviews, were agreed as being salutogenically-focused. Added to this is variation in the outcomes measured in individual studies rendering it very difficult for researchers to synthesise, fully, the evidence from studies on a particular topic. One of the suggested ways to address this is to develop and apply an agreed standardised set of outcomes, known as a ‘core outcome set’ (COS). In this paper we present a protocol for the development of a salutogenic intrapartum COS (SIPCOS) for use in maternity care research and a SIPCOS for measuring in daily intrapartum clinical care. Methods: The study proposes three phases in developing the final SIPCOSs. Phase one, which is complete, involved the conduct of a systematic review of reviews to identify a preliminary list of salutogenically-focused outcomes that had previously been reported in systematic reviews of intrapartum interventions. Sixteen unique salutogenically-focused outcome categories were identified. Phase two will involve prioritising these outcomes, from the perspective of key stakeholders (users of maternity services, clinicians and researchers) by asking them to rate the importance of each outcome for inclusion in the SIPCOSs. A final consensus meeting (phase three) will be held, bringing international stakeholders together to review the preliminary SIPCOSs resulting from the survey and to agree and finalise the final SIPCOSs for use in future maternity care research and daily clinical care. Discussion: The expectation in developing the SIPCOSs is that they will be collected and reported in all future studies evaluating intrapartum interventions and measured/recorded in future intrapartum clinical care, as routine, alongside other outcomes also deemed important in the context of the study or clinical scenario. Using the SIPCOSs in this way, will promote and encourage standardised measurements of positive health outcomes in maternity care, into the future.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- van t Hooft, Janneke, et al.
(författare)
-
Few randomized trials in preterm birth prevention meet predefined usefulness criteria
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 162, s. 107-117
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: We operationalized a research usefulness tool identified through literature searches and consensus and examined if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing preterm birth prevention met predefined criteria for usefulness. Study Design and Setting: The usefulness tool included eight criteria combining 13 items. RCTs were evaluated for compliance with each item by multiple assessors (reviewer agreement 95-98%). Proportions of compliances with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and change over time was assessed using S 2010 as a cutoff. Results: Among 347 selected RCTs, published within 56 preterm birth Cochrane reviews, only 36 (10%, 95% CI = 7-14%) met more than half of the usefulness criteria. Compared to trials before 2010, recent trials used composite or surrogate (less informative) outcomes more often (13% vs. 25%, relative risk 1.91, 95% CI = 1.21-3.00). Only 16 trials reflected real practice (pragmatism) in design (5%, 95% CI = 3-7%), with no improvements over time. No trials reported involvement of mothers to reflect patients' research priorities and outcomes selection. Recent trials were more transparent. Conclusion: Few preterm birth prevention RCTs met more than half of the usefulness criteria but most of usefulness criteria are improving after 2010. Use of informative outcomes, patient centeredness, pragmatism and transparency should be key targets for future research planning.
|
|
| 6. |
- Wilkinson, Jack, et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions
- 2024
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 14:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.Methods and analysis The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.Ethics and dissemination The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.
|
|
