Erin A. Brennand, Natalie V. Scime, Rebecca Manion, Beili Huang
Objective
To determine the association between unilateral oophorectomy (UO) and age at natural menopause.
Design
Secondary analysis of survey data from Alberta's Tomorrow Project (2000–2022).
Setting
Prospective cohort study in Alberta, Canada.
Population
23 630 women; 548 experienced UO and 23 082 did not experience UO.
Methods
Flexible parametric survival analysis was used to analyse age at natural menopause, and logistic regression was used to analyse early menopause and premature ovarian insufficiency by UO status, controlling for birth year, parity, age at menarche, past infertility, hormonal contraceptive use and smoking.
Main Outcome Measures
Age at natural menopause occurred by a final menstrual period without medical cause and sub-classified as early menopause (< 45 years) and premature ovarian insufficiency (< 40 years).
Results
Compared to no UO, any UO was associated with elevated risk of earlier age at natural menopause, which was strongest in early midlife (adjusted HR at age 40 1.71, 95% CI 1.31–2.19) and diminished over time. Compared to age 55 years at UO, risks of earlier age at natural menopause were largest and uniform in magnitude when UO occurred between approximately ages 20–40 years (adjusted HR for UO at age 30 2.32, 1.46–3.54) and then diminished as age at UO approached the average age at natural menopause. Any UO was associated with higher odds of early menopause (adjusted OR 1.90, 1.30–2.79) and premature ovarian insufficiency (adjusted OR 3.75, 1.72–8.16).
Conclusions
Unilateral oophorectomy is associated with earlier age at natural menopause, particularly when performed before 40 years of age.
目的：确定单侧输卵管切除术（UO）与自然绝经年龄之间的关系：确定单侧输卵管切除术（UO）与自然绝经年龄之间的关系：设计：对艾伯塔省 "明天项目"（2000-2022 年）的调查数据进行二次分析：研究对象：23 630 名妇女；其中 548 名经历过单侧输卵管切除术，23 082 名未经历过单侧输卵管切除术：方法：采用灵活的参数生存分析法分析自然绝经年龄，并采用逻辑回归法根据未绝经情况分析提前绝经和卵巢早衰情况，同时控制出生年份、奇偶性、初潮年龄、既往不孕情况、激素避孕药使用情况和吸烟情况：主要结果测量指标：自然绝经年龄为无医疗原因的末次月经，并被细分为提前绝经（结果：自然绝经年龄为无医疗原因的末次月经，并被细分为提前绝经）：与无月经周期相比，任何月经周期都与自然绝经年龄提前的风险升高有关，这种风险在中年早期最强（40 岁时的调整 HR 为 1.71，95% CI 为 1.31-2.19），并随着时间的推移而降低。与正常绝经年龄 55 岁相比，正常绝经年龄提前的风险在大约 20-40 岁之间发生时最大，且程度一致（30 岁时正常绝经的调整 HR 为 2.32，1.46-3.54），然后随着正常绝经年龄接近自然绝经的平均年龄而降低。任何单侧输卵管切除术都与较高的提前绝经（调整后 OR 1.90，1.30-2.79）和卵巢早衰（调整后 OR 3.75，1.72-8.16）几率相关：结论：单侧输卵管切除术与自然绝经年龄提前有关，尤其是在 40 岁之前进行的手术。
{"title":"Unilateral Oophorectomy and Age at Natural Menopause: A Longitudinal Community-Based Cohort Study","authors":"Erin A. Brennand, Natalie V. Scime, Rebecca Manion, Beili Huang","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17980","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17980","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To determine the association between unilateral oophorectomy (UO) and age at natural menopause.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Secondary analysis of survey data from Alberta's Tomorrow Project (2000–2022).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Prospective cohort study in Alberta, Canada.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Population</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>23 630 women; 548 experienced UO and 23 082 did not experience UO.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Flexible parametric survival analysis was used to analyse age at natural menopause, and logistic regression was used to analyse early menopause and premature ovarian insufficiency by UO status, controlling for birth year, parity, age at menarche, past infertility, hormonal contraceptive use and smoking.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Age at natural menopause occurred by a final menstrual period without medical cause and sub-classified as early menopause (< 45 years) and premature ovarian insufficiency (< 40 years).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Compared to no UO, any UO was associated with elevated risk of earlier age at natural menopause, which was strongest in early midlife (adjusted HR at age 40 1.71, 95% CI 1.31–2.19) and diminished over time. Compared to age 55 years at UO, risks of earlier age at natural menopause were largest and uniform in magnitude when UO occurred between approximately ages 20–40 years (adjusted HR for UO at age 30 2.32, 1.46–3.54) and then diminished as age at UO approached the average age at natural menopause. Any UO was associated with higher odds of early menopause (adjusted OR 1.90, 1.30–2.79) and premature ovarian insufficiency (adjusted OR 3.75, 1.72–8.16).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Unilateral oophorectomy is associated with earlier age at natural menopause, particularly when performed before 40 years of age.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 3","pages":"337-345"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704028/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142401868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Robert L. Goldenberg, Seemab Naqvi, Sarah Saleem, Marion Koso-Thomas, Elizabeth M. McClure, the Global Network for Women's and Children's Research COVID-19 Research Group
{"title":"COVID-19 Vaccination Rates and Vaccine Hesitancy in Pregnant Women in Seven Low- and Middle-Income Countries Through May 2023: An Observational Study From the Global Network","authors":"Robert L. Goldenberg, Seemab Naqvi, Sarah Saleem, Marion Koso-Thomas, Elizabeth M. McClure, the Global Network for Women's and Children's Research COVID-19 Research Group","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17977","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17977","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 3","pages":"387-388"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142394978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"BGCS ASM 2024","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17941","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17941","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"131 S4","pages":"3-68"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.17941","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142394980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Medical research that neither influences clinical practice nor helps to improve people's lives could be considered an expensive waste of time. A co-ordinated team science approach is critical to ensuring patient-centred research ideas are carefully honed, meticulously executed and ultimately translated into measurable improvements in human health (<span>1</span>). Several studies published in this issue of BJOG emphasise the importance of diverse multidisciplinary teams for ensuring complementary expertise, effective problem-solving and innovation in research.</p><p>A systematic review by <b>Ewington and colleagues</b> found that none of the 111 published models to predict fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age are ready for clinical implementation. Most of the 58 included studies were at high risk of bias, few models had been externally validated and some used predictors that are not routinely measured in clinical practice, rendering them impracticable for clinical translation. In his associated mini-commentary, <b>Jack Wilkinson</b> asserts that teams with appropriate methodological expertise to guide model design, analysis and reporting are key to preventing research waste. He points out that models developed using flawed methods may actually do more harm than good and notes the essential gatekeeping role journals play by refusing to publish studies that lack methodological rigour.</p><p>Other research featured in this issue of BJOG includes a propensity score-matched analysis of 50 565 singleton live births exploring the relationship between in utero aspirin exposure and child neurocognitive development by <b>Zhu and colleagues.</b> Their study found that second trimester aspirin exposure was associated with improved child neurocognitive development. <b>Sharp and colleagues</b> found no improvement in 2-year neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants whose mothers were treated with sildenafil during severe early-onset fetal growth restriction pregnancies. They conclude that sildenafil should not be prescribed for this condition. <b>Ghandhi and colleagues</b> showed in a retrospective cohort study that antenatal pyelonephritis admissions are decreasing in the USA, however, those hospitalised have a higher risk for sepsis and severe maternal morbidity. Socio-economic deprivation was shown to be associated with increased risk.</p><p><b>Sanders and colleagues</b> assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes among spontaneous vaginal births occurring in and out of water following intrapartum water immersion in a cohort study of 73 229 women. They found no increased risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) or adverse fetal outcomes, including fetal or neonatal death, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 h of birth. The authors conclude that among women using intrapartum water immersion, remaining in the pool and giving birth in the water is as safe for mothers and their babies as leavin
{"title":"Reducing research waste through team science","authors":"Emma J. Crosbie","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17981","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17981","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Medical research that neither influences clinical practice nor helps to improve people's lives could be considered an expensive waste of time. A co-ordinated team science approach is critical to ensuring patient-centred research ideas are carefully honed, meticulously executed and ultimately translated into measurable improvements in human health (<span>1</span>). Several studies published in this issue of BJOG emphasise the importance of diverse multidisciplinary teams for ensuring complementary expertise, effective problem-solving and innovation in research.</p><p>A systematic review by <b>Ewington and colleagues</b> found that none of the 111 published models to predict fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age are ready for clinical implementation. Most of the 58 included studies were at high risk of bias, few models had been externally validated and some used predictors that are not routinely measured in clinical practice, rendering them impracticable for clinical translation. In his associated mini-commentary, <b>Jack Wilkinson</b> asserts that teams with appropriate methodological expertise to guide model design, analysis and reporting are key to preventing research waste. He points out that models developed using flawed methods may actually do more harm than good and notes the essential gatekeeping role journals play by refusing to publish studies that lack methodological rigour.</p><p>Other research featured in this issue of BJOG includes a propensity score-matched analysis of 50 565 singleton live births exploring the relationship between in utero aspirin exposure and child neurocognitive development by <b>Zhu and colleagues.</b> Their study found that second trimester aspirin exposure was associated with improved child neurocognitive development. <b>Sharp and colleagues</b> found no improvement in 2-year neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants whose mothers were treated with sildenafil during severe early-onset fetal growth restriction pregnancies. They conclude that sildenafil should not be prescribed for this condition. <b>Ghandhi and colleagues</b> showed in a retrospective cohort study that antenatal pyelonephritis admissions are decreasing in the USA, however, those hospitalised have a higher risk for sepsis and severe maternal morbidity. Socio-economic deprivation was shown to be associated with increased risk.</p><p><b>Sanders and colleagues</b> assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes among spontaneous vaginal births occurring in and out of water following intrapartum water immersion in a cohort study of 73 229 women. They found no increased risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) or adverse fetal outcomes, including fetal or neonatal death, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 h of birth. The authors conclude that among women using intrapartum water immersion, remaining in the pool and giving birth in the water is as safe for mothers and their babies as leavin","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"131 12","pages":"1577-1578"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.17981","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142394979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Galit Levi Dunietz, Claudia Holzman, Xiru Lyu, Riva Tauman, Janet M. Catov
<div> <section> <h3> Objective</h3> <p>Maternal lipid levels increase in normal pregnancies. Here, we examine whether pregnancies with the highest total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or triglyceride levels or the lowest high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels predict future dyslipidemia post-pregnancy.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Design</h3> <p>Longitudinal cohort study.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting</h3> <p>Five communities in Michigan, USA.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Sample</h3> <p>Pregnant women (<i>n</i> = 649) with blood lipid levels measured at mid-pregnancy in the Pregnancy Outcomes and Community Health (POUCH) Study and at the POUCHmoms Study follow-up, 7–15 years later.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>Maternal mid-pregnancy lipid levels were defined as ‘high’ (upper quartile of triglycerides ≥ 216 mg/dL, LDL ≥ 145 mg/dL and total cholesterol ≥ 256 mg/dL) or ‘low’ (lower quartile, HDL < 58 mg/dL) using whole sample lipid distributions. At follow-up, dyslipidemia was classified by the clinical cutoffs of triglycerides and total cholesterol ≥ 200 mg/dL, LDL ≥ 130 mg/dL and HDL < 50 mg/dL. Weighted regression models estimated the risk of dyslipidemia at follow-up in relation to pregnancy lipid levels, adjusted for baseline confounders.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Outcome Measure</h3> <p>Dyslipidemia later in life.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Mid-pregnancy triglycerides, LDL, and total cholesterol levels at the upper quartile were associated with at least threefold increase in the risk of abnormal triglycerides, LDL and total cholesterol levels later in life. Women with low mid-pregnancy HDL levels had just over a twofold increased risk of abnormally low HDL levels at follow-up. These associations persisted following adjustment for covariates, i.e. demographics, lifestyle, and years of follow-up.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusions</h3> <p>Higher mid-pregnancy LDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides and lower levels of HDL may signal future dyslipidemia risk and the need for closer lipid monitoring to ensure timely interventions that can attenuate cardiovascular disease
{"title":"Maternal Lipids in Pregnancy and Later Life Dyslipidemia: The POUCHmoms Longitudinal Cohort Study","authors":"Galit Levi Dunietz, Claudia Holzman, Xiru Lyu, Riva Tauman, Janet M. Catov","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17975","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17975","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Maternal lipid levels increase in normal pregnancies. Here, we examine whether pregnancies with the highest total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or triglyceride levels or the lowest high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels predict future dyslipidemia post-pregnancy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Longitudinal cohort study.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Five communities in Michigan, USA.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Sample</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Pregnant women (<i>n</i> = 649) with blood lipid levels measured at mid-pregnancy in the Pregnancy Outcomes and Community Health (POUCH) Study and at the POUCHmoms Study follow-up, 7–15 years later.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Maternal mid-pregnancy lipid levels were defined as ‘high’ (upper quartile of triglycerides ≥ 216 mg/dL, LDL ≥ 145 mg/dL and total cholesterol ≥ 256 mg/dL) or ‘low’ (lower quartile, HDL < 58 mg/dL) using whole sample lipid distributions. At follow-up, dyslipidemia was classified by the clinical cutoffs of triglycerides and total cholesterol ≥ 200 mg/dL, LDL ≥ 130 mg/dL and HDL < 50 mg/dL. Weighted regression models estimated the risk of dyslipidemia at follow-up in relation to pregnancy lipid levels, adjusted for baseline confounders.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Outcome Measure</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Dyslipidemia later in life.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Mid-pregnancy triglycerides, LDL, and total cholesterol levels at the upper quartile were associated with at least threefold increase in the risk of abnormal triglycerides, LDL and total cholesterol levels later in life. Women with low mid-pregnancy HDL levels had just over a twofold increased risk of abnormally low HDL levels at follow-up. These associations persisted following adjustment for covariates, i.e. demographics, lifestyle, and years of follow-up.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Higher mid-pregnancy LDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides and lower levels of HDL may signal future dyslipidemia risk and the need for closer lipid monitoring to ensure timely interventions that can attenuate cardiovascular disease","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 2","pages":"212-219"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.17975","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142385300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pauline De Corte, Moritz Klinghardt, Sophia von Stockum, Klaas Heinemann
Background
Endometriosis diagnosis reportedly faces delays of up to 10 years. Despite growing awareness and improved guidelines, information on the current status is limited.
Objectives
To systematically assess the published evidence on the status of time to diagnosis in individuals with endometriosis, with respect to the definition of time to diagnosis, geographical location and patient characteristics.
Search Strategy
MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase were searched for publications reporting time to diagnosing endometriosis since 2018. No restrictions to population or comparators were applied. All publications were screened by two independent reviewers.
Selection Criteria
Search results were limited to primary publications of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials and observational studies. Case reports, secondary publications and grey literature were excluded. No restrictions were made regarding language, provided that an English title and abstract were available.
Data Collection and Analysis
Publications were assessed with respect to time to diagnosis, diagnostic methods, study type, study country and potential bias.
Main Results
The 17 publications eligible for inclusion in this literature review were all observational studies. The publications reported diagnosis times between 0.3 and 12 years, with variations depending on the definition of time to diagnosis (overall, primary, or clinical), geographical location and characteristics of the included study population. Evidence was of poor to good quality overall.
Conclusions
Diagnostic delay is still present, primarily driven by physicians, and this review underscores the need for standardised definitions, increased awareness and targeted diagnostic interventions.
{"title":"Time to Diagnose Endometriosis: Current Status, Challenges and Regional Characteristics—A Systematic Literature Review","authors":"Pauline De Corte, Moritz Klinghardt, Sophia von Stockum, Klaas Heinemann","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17973","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17973","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Endometriosis diagnosis reportedly faces delays of up to 10 years. Despite growing awareness and improved guidelines, information on the current status is limited.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To systematically assess the published evidence on the status of time to diagnosis in individuals with endometriosis, with respect to the definition of time to diagnosis, geographical location and patient characteristics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Strategy</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase were searched for publications reporting time to diagnosing endometriosis since 2018. No restrictions to population or comparators were applied. All publications were screened by two independent reviewers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Search results were limited to primary publications of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials and observational studies. Case reports, secondary publications and grey literature were excluded. No restrictions were made regarding language, provided that an English title and abstract were available.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Publications were assessed with respect to time to diagnosis, diagnostic methods, study type, study country and potential bias.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The 17 publications eligible for inclusion in this literature review were all observational studies. The publications reported diagnosis times between 0.3 and 12 years, with variations depending on the definition of time to diagnosis (overall, primary, or clinical), geographical location and characteristics of the included study population. Evidence was of poor to good quality overall.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Diagnostic delay is still present, primarily driven by physicians, and this review underscores the need for standardised definitions, increased awareness and targeted diagnostic interventions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 2","pages":"118-130"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11625652/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142382232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Frances Conti-Ramsden, Jessica Fleminger, Julia Lanoue, Lucy C. Chappell, Cheryl Battersby, the UK Neonatal Collaborative
<div> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The objectives of this study were to (i) quantify the contribution of maternal hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) to iatrogenic preterm birth (PTB) and neonatal unit (NNU) admissions < 34<sup>+0</sup> weeks and (ii) describe short-term population-level outcomes for HDP infants, exploring ethnic disparities and comparing outcomes by HDP exposure.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Design</h3> <p>Retrospective population-based study using the National Neonatal Research Database.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting</h3> <p>England and Wales.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Population</h3> <p>Infants born < 34<sup>+0</sup> weeks and admitted to NNU 2012–2020.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>Descriptive statistics, linear and logistic regression models to compare outcomes between groups.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3> <p>Survival to discharge with/without comorbidity.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>122 228 infants met inclusion criteria. Where collected, 49 839/114 164 (43.7%, 95% CI 43.4%–43.9%) of infants had an iatrogenic PTB. HDP was recorded in 16 510/122 228 (13.5%) of all infants and 13 560/49 839 (27.2%) of iatrogenic PTBs. HDP and/or foetal growth restriction (FGR) were recorded in 24 124/49 839 (48.4%) of iatrogenic PTBs. Singleton HDP infants < 10th BWC had ≥ 90% survival to discharge from 28 weeks' gestation, versus from 26 weeks' gestation for those born ≥ 10th BWC. In extreme preterm HDP infants (< 27 weeks), 27.3% of infants < 10th BWC died compared to 15.2% of those ≥ 10th BWC. Survival without comorbidity was ≥ 90% from 32 weeks' gestation in HDP infants across BWC.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusions</h3> <p>These contemporaneous population-level data show that almost one in two PTB < 34<sup>+0</sup> weeks' gestation are iatrogenic, with HDP and/or FGR being the major contributors to iatrogenic prematurity. This has substantial implications for strategies to reduce preterm birth in the UK and internationally. The data further inform antenatal and at-birth counselling of HDP-exposed infants.</p> </secti
{"title":"The Contribution of Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy to Neonatal Unit Admissions and Iatrogenic Preterm Delivery at < 34+0 Weeks' Gestation in the UK: A Population-Based Study Using the National Neonatal Research Database","authors":"Frances Conti-Ramsden, Jessica Fleminger, Julia Lanoue, Lucy C. Chappell, Cheryl Battersby, the UK Neonatal Collaborative","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17976","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17976","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objectives of this study were to (i) quantify the contribution of maternal hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) to iatrogenic preterm birth (PTB) and neonatal unit (NNU) admissions < 34<sup>+0</sup> weeks and (ii) describe short-term population-level outcomes for HDP infants, exploring ethnic disparities and comparing outcomes by HDP exposure.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Retrospective population-based study using the National Neonatal Research Database.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>England and Wales.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Population</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Infants born < 34<sup>+0</sup> weeks and admitted to NNU 2012–2020.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Descriptive statistics, linear and logistic regression models to compare outcomes between groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Survival to discharge with/without comorbidity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>122 228 infants met inclusion criteria. Where collected, 49 839/114 164 (43.7%, 95% CI 43.4%–43.9%) of infants had an iatrogenic PTB. HDP was recorded in 16 510/122 228 (13.5%) of all infants and 13 560/49 839 (27.2%) of iatrogenic PTBs. HDP and/or foetal growth restriction (FGR) were recorded in 24 124/49 839 (48.4%) of iatrogenic PTBs. Singleton HDP infants < 10th BWC had ≥ 90% survival to discharge from 28 weeks' gestation, versus from 26 weeks' gestation for those born ≥ 10th BWC. In extreme preterm HDP infants (< 27 weeks), 27.3% of infants < 10th BWC died compared to 15.2% of those ≥ 10th BWC. Survival without comorbidity was ≥ 90% from 32 weeks' gestation in HDP infants across BWC.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>These contemporaneous population-level data show that almost one in two PTB < 34<sup>+0</sup> weeks' gestation are iatrogenic, with HDP and/or FGR being the major contributors to iatrogenic prematurity. This has substantial implications for strategies to reduce preterm birth in the UK and internationally. The data further inform antenatal and at-birth counselling of HDP-exposed infants.</p>\u0000 </secti","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 3","pages":"306-317"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704029/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142382231","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sarah J. Conrad, Stéphanie Bernard, Douglas P. Gross, Linda McLean
Background
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are recommended to measure the impact of a health condition or intervention effectiveness as they aim to capture what is most meaningful to patients. Several PROMs are used to evaluate pelvic organ prolapse (POP)-related domains, yet the measurement properties of these instruments have not been fully explored with a rigorous analysis of the methodological quality and quality of evidence.
Objective
To conduct a systematic review reporting on the measurement properties of PROMs used for the assessment of POP-related domains in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines.
Search Strategy
Five databases were searched from inception to December 2023.
Selection Criteria
Studies were eligible if they involved (1) at least one group of female adults diagnosed with or presenting with symptoms of POP; (2) a self-reported outcome measure (PROMs, questionnaires) to evaluate POP-related domains; and (3) at least one measurement property.
Data Collection and Analysis
Methodological quality and measurement quality were assessed using the COSMIN risk of bias (ROB) checklist and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.
Main Results
A total of 13 PROMs were included. The BIPOP had the lowest ROB for Content Validity. The POP-SS was the only PROM with sufficient evidence of adequate construct validity and responsiveness to be used in both surgical and conservative management settings.
Conclusion
This original work identified a gap in evidence regarding the measurement qualities of identified PROMs used in the POP population.
背景：建议采用患者报告结果测量法（PROMs）来测量健康状况的影响或干预效果，因为这些方法旨在捕捉对患者最有意义的信息。有几种 PROMs 被用于评估与盆腔器官脱垂（POP）相关的领域，但这些工具的测量特性尚未通过对方法学质量和证据质量的严格分析得到充分探讨：根据 COSMIN 指南，对用于评估 POP 相关领域的 PROM 的测量特性进行系统性综述：筛选标准：符合条件的研究包括：(1) 至少一组被诊断患有或出现 POP 症状的成年女性；(2) 用于评估 POP 相关领域的自我报告结果测量方法（PROMs、调查问卷）；(3) 至少一种测量特性：数据收集与分析：采用COSMIN偏倚风险（ROB）清单和COSMIN良好测量属性标准对方法学质量和测量质量进行评估：主要结果：共纳入了 13 项 PROM。BIPOP 的内容有效性 ROB 最低。POP-SS是唯一一个有充分证据表明具有足够的构建有效性和响应性的PROM，可用于手术和保守治疗：这项原创性工作确定了在用于 POP 群体的已确定 PROM 的测量质量方面存在的证据差距。
{"title":"Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review Using the COnsensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Checklist","authors":"Sarah J. Conrad, Stéphanie Bernard, Douglas P. Gross, Linda McLean","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17971","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17971","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are recommended to measure the impact of a health condition or intervention effectiveness as they aim to capture what is most meaningful to patients. Several PROMs are used to evaluate pelvic organ prolapse (POP)-related domains, yet the measurement properties of these instruments have not been fully explored with a rigorous analysis of the methodological quality and quality of evidence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To conduct a systematic review reporting on the measurement properties of PROMs used for the assessment of POP-related domains in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Strategy</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Five databases were searched from inception to December 2023.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies were eligible if they involved (1) at least one group of female adults diagnosed with or presenting with symptoms of POP; (2) a self-reported outcome measure (PROMs, questionnaires) to evaluate POP-related domains; and (3) at least one measurement property.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Methodological quality and measurement quality were assessed using the COSMIN risk of bias (ROB) checklist and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 13 PROMs were included. The BIPOP had the lowest ROB for Content Validity. The POP-SS was the only PROM with sufficient evidence of adequate construct validity and responsiveness to be used in both surgical and conservative management settings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This original work identified a gap in evidence regarding the measurement qualities of identified PROMs used in the POP population.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 2","pages":"105-117"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11625655/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142373472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ellis C. Becking, Mireille N. Bekker, Jens Henrichs, Caroline J. Bax, Erik A. Sistermans, Lidewij Henneman, Peter G. Scheffer, Ewoud Schuit
<div> <section> <h3> Objective</h3> <p>To assess the added value of fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation in the prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Design</h3> <p>Retrospective cohort study.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting</h3> <p>Nationwide implementation study on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT; TRIDENT-2 study).</p> </section> <section> <h3> Population</h3> <p>Pregnant women in the Netherlands opting for NIPT between June 2018 and June 2019.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>Two logistic regression prediction models were constructed for each adverse pregnancy outcome. The first model (base model) included prognostic clinical parameters that were selected from existing first-trimester prediction models for adverse pregnancy outcomes. The second model (fetal fraction model) included fetal fraction as a predictor on top of the prognostic clinical parameters included in the base model. The added prognostic value of fetal fraction was assessed by comparing the base and fetal fraction models in terms of goodness of fit and predictive performance.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3> <p>Likelihood ratio test (LRT), area under the curve (AUC) and Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI) index.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>The study cohort consisted of 56 110 pregnancies. The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes was 5.7% for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP; <i>n</i> = 3207), 10.2% for birthweight < p10 (<i>n</i> = 5726), 3.2% for birthweight < p2.3 (<i>n</i> = 1796), 3.4% for spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB; <i>n</i> = 1891), 3.4% for diabetes (<i>n</i> = 1902) and 1.3% for congenital anomalies (<i>n</i> = 741). Adding fetal fraction to the base model improved model fit for HDP, birthweight < p10, birthweight < p2.3, all sPTB, and diabetes, but not for congenital anomalies (LRT <i>p</i> < 0.05). For HDP, the AUC improved from 0.67 to 0.68 by adding fetal fraction to the base model (<i>p</i> = 0.14) with an IDI of 0.0018 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). For birthweight < p10, the AUC improved from 0.65 to 0.66 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001) with an IDI of 0.0023 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). For birthweight < p2.3, the AUC imp
{"title":"Fetal Fraction of Cell-Free DNA in the Prediction of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"Ellis C. Becking, Mireille N. Bekker, Jens Henrichs, Caroline J. Bax, Erik A. Sistermans, Lidewij Henneman, Peter G. Scheffer, Ewoud Schuit","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17978","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17978","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess the added value of fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation in the prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Retrospective cohort study.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Nationwide implementation study on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT; TRIDENT-2 study).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Population</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Pregnant women in the Netherlands opting for NIPT between June 2018 and June 2019.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Two logistic regression prediction models were constructed for each adverse pregnancy outcome. The first model (base model) included prognostic clinical parameters that were selected from existing first-trimester prediction models for adverse pregnancy outcomes. The second model (fetal fraction model) included fetal fraction as a predictor on top of the prognostic clinical parameters included in the base model. The added prognostic value of fetal fraction was assessed by comparing the base and fetal fraction models in terms of goodness of fit and predictive performance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Likelihood ratio test (LRT), area under the curve (AUC) and Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI) index.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The study cohort consisted of 56 110 pregnancies. The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes was 5.7% for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP; <i>n</i> = 3207), 10.2% for birthweight < p10 (<i>n</i> = 5726), 3.2% for birthweight < p2.3 (<i>n</i> = 1796), 3.4% for spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB; <i>n</i> = 1891), 3.4% for diabetes (<i>n</i> = 1902) and 1.3% for congenital anomalies (<i>n</i> = 741). Adding fetal fraction to the base model improved model fit for HDP, birthweight < p10, birthweight < p2.3, all sPTB, and diabetes, but not for congenital anomalies (LRT <i>p</i> < 0.05). For HDP, the AUC improved from 0.67 to 0.68 by adding fetal fraction to the base model (<i>p</i> = 0.14) with an IDI of 0.0018 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). For birthweight < p10, the AUC improved from 0.65 to 0.66 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001) with an IDI of 0.0023 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). For birthweight < p2.3, the AUC imp","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 3","pages":"318-325"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704031/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142367317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical technique used to combine and analyze data from the results of multiple previous independent studies on a particular topic, to derive overall conclusions or effect estimates. In general (but not exclusively), meta-analyses are based on RCTs. The results are often used to develop standard practice or clinical guidelines. However, RCTs may be inaccurate or fabricated, leading to journal withdrawal or retraction. This article aims to expand upon the list of RCT quality criteria for authors of meta-analyses of RCTs, so that low-quality and fabricated studies are excluded from meta-analyses.</p><p>The editors in the group were invited to participate in monthly or bimonthly calls regarding trustworthiness in OBGYN publishing, with the aim of preventing publication of untrustworthy science in women's health. Using data from the published literature, including our prior work,<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> Cochrane guidance,<span><sup>3</sup></span> the TRACT Checklist,<span><sup>4</sup></span> the author instructions of the various journals, and other publications related to trustworthiness of meta-analyses of RCTs,<span><sup>5</sup></span> criteria for meta-analyses were reviewed, reaching consensus by majority.</p><p>By consensus, 21 quality criteria were agreed upon by the editors. The aim is for authors to check and confirm the quality criteria for <i>each</i> identified RCT when carrying out a meta-analysis of RCTs (Tables 1 and 2). These criteria help to identify trustworthy RCTs, and are assigned to two groups: absolute criteria, and ‘other quality’ criteria. ‘Absolute’ trustworthiness criteria are those that, if not met, would suggest non-inclusion in the main results of meta-analyses of RCTs (Table 1). ‘Other quality’ criteria are those that, if not met, would suggest lower quality of RCTs (Table 2). In addition, the meta-analysis should be prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (or a similar international, publicly accessible database, e.g. INPLASY; Research Registry—Registry of Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis).</p><p>The consensus decision was that the abstract and primary analysis of meta-analyses should report only trustworthy, ‘high-quality’ RCTs that meet all of the ‘absolute’ criteria (Table 1). Authors of meta-analyses are encouraged to contact RCT authors for additional information regarding the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 if the details cannot be found in the published manuscript or registered protocol. At a minimum, all co-authors of meta-analyses should confirm at the point of submission that each included article meets the criteria included in Table 1. Individual journals may also ask authors to confirm that each article meets the criteria in Table 2, or may go further and ask authors to complete and submit a checklist for the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 for each article included in the meta-analysis. In general, RCTs that are published as an abstract only seldom report all crite
{"title":"Trustworthiness Criteria for Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Studies: OBGYN Journal Guidelines","authors":"The OBGYN Editors' Integrity Group (OGEIG)","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17945","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1471-0528.17945","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical technique used to combine and analyze data from the results of multiple previous independent studies on a particular topic, to derive overall conclusions or effect estimates. In general (but not exclusively), meta-analyses are based on RCTs. The results are often used to develop standard practice or clinical guidelines. However, RCTs may be inaccurate or fabricated, leading to journal withdrawal or retraction. This article aims to expand upon the list of RCT quality criteria for authors of meta-analyses of RCTs, so that low-quality and fabricated studies are excluded from meta-analyses.</p><p>The editors in the group were invited to participate in monthly or bimonthly calls regarding trustworthiness in OBGYN publishing, with the aim of preventing publication of untrustworthy science in women's health. Using data from the published literature, including our prior work,<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> Cochrane guidance,<span><sup>3</sup></span> the TRACT Checklist,<span><sup>4</sup></span> the author instructions of the various journals, and other publications related to trustworthiness of meta-analyses of RCTs,<span><sup>5</sup></span> criteria for meta-analyses were reviewed, reaching consensus by majority.</p><p>By consensus, 21 quality criteria were agreed upon by the editors. The aim is for authors to check and confirm the quality criteria for <i>each</i> identified RCT when carrying out a meta-analysis of RCTs (Tables 1 and 2). These criteria help to identify trustworthy RCTs, and are assigned to two groups: absolute criteria, and ‘other quality’ criteria. ‘Absolute’ trustworthiness criteria are those that, if not met, would suggest non-inclusion in the main results of meta-analyses of RCTs (Table 1). ‘Other quality’ criteria are those that, if not met, would suggest lower quality of RCTs (Table 2). In addition, the meta-analysis should be prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (or a similar international, publicly accessible database, e.g. INPLASY; Research Registry—Registry of Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis).</p><p>The consensus decision was that the abstract and primary analysis of meta-analyses should report only trustworthy, ‘high-quality’ RCTs that meet all of the ‘absolute’ criteria (Table 1). Authors of meta-analyses are encouraged to contact RCT authors for additional information regarding the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 if the details cannot be found in the published manuscript or registered protocol. At a minimum, all co-authors of meta-analyses should confirm at the point of submission that each included article meets the criteria included in Table 1. Individual journals may also ask authors to confirm that each article meets the criteria in Table 2, or may go further and ask authors to complete and submit a checklist for the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 for each article included in the meta-analysis. In general, RCTs that are published as an abstract only seldom report all crite","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.17945","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142362392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号