Core outcome set for studies on pregnant women with vasa previa (COVasP): a study protocol

Abstract

IntroductionVasa previa is a condition where fetal blood vessels run unprotected in the membranes, outside the umbilical cord, and cross the internal opening of the cervix. During rupture of membranes, these vessels can rupture and put the baby at serious risk of severe blood loss and death. Numerous studies are being conducted to improve diagnostic modalities and establish clear management plans to improve pregnancy outcomes. However, the lack of a standardised set of outcomes for studies on vasa previa makes it difficult to compare study findings and draw meaningful conclusions. Through this project, we will be developing a core outcome set for studies on pregnant women with vasa previa (COVasP).Methods and analysisThe development of COVasP will involve five steps. The first will be a systematic review, in which we will generate a long list of outcomes based on published studies in pregnancies complicated with vasa previa. The second will involve in-depth interviews with current and former patients, their family members and healthcare providers who care for these patients. This will be followed by a two-round Delphi survey, which will aim to narrow down the long list of outcomes into those considered important by four groups of ‘stakeholders’: (1) patients, family members and patient advocates/representatives, (2) healthcare providers, (3) researchers, epidemiologists and methodologists and (4) other stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the management of these pregnancies such as administrators, guideline developers and policymakers. The fourth step will involve a face-to-face consensus meeting using a nominal group approach to establish a finalised core outcome set. The final step will involve measuring and defining the identified outcomes using a combination of systematic reviews and Delphi surveys.Ethics and disseminationThis study as well as consent forms for stakeholder participation have received approval from the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB number 18-0173-E) on 05 September 2018 and the Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of Technology Sydney, Australia on 30 July 2019 (UTS HREC reference number ETH19-3718). All progress will be documented on the international prospective register of systematic reviews and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials databases.Registration detailshttp://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1117.

A scoping review of outcomes commonly reported in obesity prevention interventions aiming to improve obesity‐related health behaviors in children to age 5 years

“…19,22,38 The quality of included studies with respect to their measurement properties was not assessed, in accordance with some of the most recently published research on COS development. 39,40 This decision was made due to the lack of well-validated quality assessment tools designed to assess measurement properties of included studies 27 and the fact that descriptors of reporting quality are not considered integral components of the review stage for COS development. 39 3 | RESULTS…”

Patients and Health Care Providers Identify Important Outcomes for Research on Pregnancy and Heart Disease

“… 10 Patient and stakeholder interviews which enable researchers to obtain first-hand information from those directly affected by a condition and proposed interventions, and about how they would prioritize outcomes while making medical decisions, have therefore been the focus of recent publications. 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 While conducting these interviews, in keeping with the primary intention of eliciting outcomes, attention must be paid to the use of a semistructured interview guide and the liberal use of prompts to redirect patients and family members to focus on outcomes. Interpretive analysis, wherein quotes, anecdotes, experiences, and perceptions are translated into measurable outcomes, forms an integral part of the research process, especially for patient interviews, as the concept of outcomes can be difficult to explain and discuss with those who do not work and think in a health intervention context.…”

Establishing a core outcome set for neurogenic bladder trials: study protocol for a scoping review and Delphi surveys

“…As the aim of this scoping review is to identify all reported outcomes in order to generate a long list of outcomes to inform the development of the COS, and there is no validated tool to assess the quality of outcome reporting, it is decided that the quality of outcome reporting of included studies would not be assessed [ 22 ].…”