Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Current data on critical illness during pregnancy are insufficient for evidence-based decision making. Core outcome sets are promoted to improve reporting of outcomes important to decision makers. We aim to develop a Core Outcome Set for research on critically ill obstetric patients (COSCO study).

Methods

We will perform a systematic review of studies on critical illness in pregnancy and focus groups or interviews with women who were critically ill while being pregnant. These data will inform an international Delphi survey where stakeholders will rank proposed outcomes. Selected outcomes will be brought forward to a consensus meeting where core outcomes will be defined. We will then complete a second consensus process to define measures for each core outcome.

Conclusion

The Core Outcome Set on Critically ill Obstetric patients study aims to develop a set of core outcomes to be part of all studies on critically ill obstetric patients. Implementation of this core outcome set will help improve future research efforts.

Trial registration: This study is registered on the COMET-initiative website (COS #916). This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD #42017071944).

Keywords

Intensive care medicine maternal–fetal medicine high-risk pregnancy complications

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gaffney

Critical care in pregnancy – is it different?

Semin Perinatol 2014; 38: 329–340.

Aoyama

Seaward

Lapinsky

SE.

Fetal outcome in the critically ill pregnant woman. Crit Care 2014; 18: 307.

Pollock

Rose

Dennis

CL.

Pregnant and postpartum admissions to the intensive care unit: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36: 1465–1474.

Williamson

Altman

Bagley

et al . The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017; 18: 280.

COMET Initiative. Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative, http://www.comet-initiative.org/ (accessed 23 October 2017).

InFACT. International Forum for Acute Care Trialists (InFACT), http://www.infactglobal.org/ (2017, accessed 23 October 2017).

CROWN Initiative. The Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn Health (CROWN) Initiative, http://www.crown-initiative.org/ (2017, accessed 23 October 2017).

Blackwood

Marshall

Rose

Progress on core outcome sets for critical care research. Curr Opin Crit Care 2015; 21: 439–444.

Kirkham

Gorst

Altman

et al . Core outcome set–STAndards for reporting: the COS-STAR statement. PLoS Med 2016; 13: e1002148.

10.

Prinsen

Vohra

Rose

et al . How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” – a practical guideline. Trials 2016; 17: 449.

11.

Viau-Lapointe J, Twin S, Kfouri J, et al. Outcomes reported in studies on critically ill pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review. PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews 2017. CRD42017071944. Available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017071944.

12.

Keeley

Williamson

Callery

et al . The use of qualitative methods to inform Delphi surveys in core outcome set development. Trials 2016; 17: 230.

13.

Jones

Keeley

et al . A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0172937.

14.

Hinton

Locock

Knight

Maternal critical care: what can we learn from patient experience? A qualitative study. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e006676.

15.

The World Bank Group. World Bank Country and Lending Groups, https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-country-classifications-income-level-2017-2018 (2018, accessed 1 March 2018).

16.

Vaismoradi

Turunen

Bondas

Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 2013; 15: 398–405.

17.

Elo

Kyngas

The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62: 107–115.

18.

Dodd

Clarke

Becker

et al . A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 96: 84–92.

19.

Williamson

Altman

Blazeby

et al . Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012; 13: 132.

20.

Preeclampsia Foundation. Helping save mothers and babies from illness and death due to preeclampsia, https://www.preeclampsia.org/ (accessed 23 October 2017).

21.

ICUsteps. ICUsteps, http://www.icusteps.org/ (2017, accessed 23 October 2017).

22.

Hasson

Keeney

Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2011; 78: 1695–1704.

23.

Powell

The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 2003; 41: 376–382.

24.

Hsu

C-C

Sandford

BA.

The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval 2007; 12: 10.

25.

Young

Bagley

Including patients in core outcome set development: issues to consider based on three workshops with around 100 international delegates. Res Involv Engagem 2016; 2: 25.

26.

Kirwan

Minnock

Adebajo

et al . Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007; 34: 1174–1177.

27.

Egan

Galjaard

Maresh

MJA

et al . A core outcome set for studies evaluating the effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes. Diabetologia 2017; 60: 1190–1196.

28.

Al Wattar

Tamilselvan

Khan

et al . Development of a core outcome set for epilepsy in pregnancy (E-CORE): a national multi-stakeholder modified Delphi consensus study. BJOG 2017; 124: 661–667.

29.

Needham

Sepulveda

Dinglas

et al . Core outcome measures for clinical research in acute respiratory failure survivors: an International Modified Delphi Consensus Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 196: 1122–1130.

30.

Guyatt

Oxman

Kunz

et al . GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 395–400.

31.

Diamond

Grant

Feldman

et al . Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 401–409.

32.

Harvey

Holmes

CA.

Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus. Int J Nurs Pract 2012; 18: 188–194.

33.

COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, http://http//www.cosmin.nl (2017, accessed 23 October 2017).

34.

Mokkink

Terwee

Patrick

et al . The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539–549.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB

Development of a Core Outcome Set for research on critically ill obstetric patients: A study protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material