Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Baba A, Webbe J, Butcher NJ, Rodrigues C, Stallwood E, Goren K, et al.
    Pediatrics, 2023 Sep 01;152(3).
    PMID: 37641881 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2022-060751
    OBJECTIVES: Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and application of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary outcomes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of primary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials.

    METHODS: Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.

    RESULTS: Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.

    CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.

  2. Webbe J, Baba A, Butcher NJ, Rodrigues C, Stallwood E, Goren K, et al.
    Pediatrics, 2023 Sep 01;152(3).
    PMID: 37641894 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2022-060765
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is variability in the selection and reporting of outcomes in neonatal trials with key information frequently omitted. This can impact applicability of trial findings to clinicians, families, and caregivers, and impair evidence synthesis. The Neonatal Core Outcomes Set describes outcomes agreed as clinically important that should be assessed in all neonatal trials, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Outcomes 2022 is a new, harmonized, evidence-based reporting guideline for trial outcomes. We reviewed published trials using CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidance to identify exemplars of neonatal core outcome reporting to strengthen description of outcomes in future trial publications.

    METHODS: Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports.

    RESULTS: Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting.

    CONCLUSIONS: We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.

  3. Wang H, Liddell CA, Coates MM, Mooney MD, Levitz CE, Schumacher AE, et al.
    Lancet, 2014 Sep 13;384(9947):957-79.
    PMID: 24797572 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60497-9
    BACKGROUND: Remarkable financial and political efforts have been focused on the reduction of child mortality during the past few decades. Timely measurements of levels and trends in under-5 mortality are important to assess progress towards the Millennium Development Goal 4 (MDG 4) target of reduction of child mortality by two thirds from 1990 to 2015, and to identify models of success.

    METHODS: We generated updated estimates of child mortality in early neonatal (age 0-6 days), late neonatal (7-28 days), postneonatal (29-364 days), childhood (1-4 years), and under-5 (0-4 years) age groups for 188 countries from 1970 to 2013, with more than 29,000 survey, census, vital registration, and sample registration datapoints. We used Gaussian process regression with adjustments for bias and non-sampling error to synthesise the data for under-5 mortality for each country, and a separate model to estimate mortality for more detailed age groups. We used explanatory mixed effects regression models to assess the association between under-5 mortality and income per person, maternal education, HIV child death rates, secular shifts, and other factors. To quantify the contribution of these different factors and birth numbers to the change in numbers of deaths in under-5 age groups from 1990 to 2013, we used Shapley decomposition. We used estimated rates of change between 2000 and 2013 to construct under-5 mortality rate scenarios out to 2030.

    FINDINGS: We estimated that 6·3 million (95% UI 6·0-6·6) children under-5 died in 2013, a 64% reduction from 17·6 million (17·1-18·1) in 1970. In 2013, child mortality rates ranged from 152·5 per 1000 livebirths (130·6-177·4) in Guinea-Bissau to 2·3 (1·8-2·9) per 1000 in Singapore. The annualised rates of change from 1990 to 2013 ranged from -6·8% to 0·1%. 99 of 188 countries, including 43 of 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, had faster decreases in child mortality during 2000-13 than during 1990-2000. In 2013, neonatal deaths accounted for 41·6% of under-5 deaths compared with 37·4% in 1990. Compared with 1990, in 2013, rising numbers of births, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, led to 1·4 million more child deaths, and rising income per person and maternal education led to 0·9 million and 2·2 million fewer deaths, respectively. Changes in secular trends led to 4·2 million fewer deaths. Unexplained factors accounted for only -1% of the change in child deaths. In 30 developing countries, decreases since 2000 have been faster than predicted attributable to income, education, and secular shift alone.

    INTERPRETATION: Only 27 developing countries are expected to achieve MDG 4. Decreases since 2000 in under-5 mortality rates are accelerating in many developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The Millennium Declaration and increased development assistance for health might have been a factor in faster decreases in some developing countries. Without further accelerated progress, many countries in west and central Africa will still have high levels of under-5 mortality in 2030.

    FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, US Agency for International Development.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links