Choice of primary outcomes in randomised trials and systematic reviews evaluating interventions for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review

Shireen Meher · Žarko Alfirević

98 citations0/0 files storedBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The inappropriate and inconsistent selection of primary outcomes (POs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) can make evidence difficult to interpret, limiting its usefulness to inform clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the choice and consistency of POs in RCTs and SRs of preventative interventions for preterm birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Specialised Register of trials and a full list of published reviews and protocols. SELECTION CRITERIA: Full reports of RCTs for preterm birth prevention published after CONSORT (January 1997-January 2011), and Cochrane Reviews and protocols relevant to preterm birth prevention, for the same period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For RCTs, the PO was the outcome used for sample size calculation. For SRs, we included all outcomes listed as 'primary'. Two review authors selected studies and double-checked the data for accuracy. RESULTS: Seventy-two different POs were reported by 103 RCTs. The three most common POs were based on length of gestation, with preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation being the most common (18/103, 18%). Few RCTs chose perinatal morbidity (4/103) or mortality (1/103), or their composites (5/103), as POs. In 33 Cochrane Reviews, 29 different POs were reported. The three most common POs were based on death or morbidity in the baby, with death of the baby being the most common (22/33, 67%). POs were variably defined. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consistency in the choice and definitions of POs in clinical research related to preterm birth prevention. SRs are more likely to report morbidity and mortality as POs, whereas RCTs tend to use length of gestation. Researchers are urged to review the outcomes reported in RCTs and SRs in their respective areas of interest to highlight discrepancies and facilitate the development of core outcome sets.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 98 citations exist upstream.

References

2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2003Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations 2012Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider 1998meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies 2007OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology 2007Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews 2007Evaluating Maternity Care: A Core Set of Outcome Measures

Cited by

2015A Core Outcome Set for Evaluation of Interventions to Prevent Preterm Birth 2017Core outcome sets in women's and newborn health: a systematic review 2016Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study 2014The CROWN Initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women's health 2018Development of a core outcome set for trials on induction of labour: an international multistakeholder Delphi study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.