• A systematic review of primary outcomes, their evaluation in the results of randomized studies studying the treatment of preeclampsia
en To content

A systematic review of primary outcomes, their evaluation in the results of randomized studies studying the treatment of preeclampsia

HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2017.7(123):139–142

James M.N. Duffy, Martin Hirsch, Chris Gale, Louise Pealing, Anusuya Kawsar, Marian Showell, Paula R. Williamson, Khalid S. Khan, Sue Ziebland, Richard J. McManus
On behalf of the International Cooperation for the Harmonization of the Results of Preeclampsia (ICHD)
Abridged version. Adapted – S.A. Shurpyak

REFERENCES

1. Tranquilli AL, Dekker G, Magee L et al. 2014. The classica on, diagnosis and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: A revised statement from the ISSHP. Pregnancy Hypertens. 4:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preghy.2014.02.001; PMid:26104417

2. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA et al. 2014. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 383:166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8

3. Du y JMN, van ‘t Hoo J, Gale C et al. 2016. A protocol for developing, dis- semina ng, and implemen ng a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia. Pregnancy Hypertens. 6:274–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preghy.2016.04.008; PMid:27939467

4. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D et al. 2010. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for repor ng parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 340:332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332; PMid:20332509 PMCid:PMC2844940

5. Macefield RC, Boulind CE, Blazeby JM. 2014. Selec ng and measuring op – mal outcomes for randomised controlled trials in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 399:263–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-013-1136-8; PMid:24233344 PMCid:PMC3961630

6. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. 2014. Selec ve repor ng bias of harm outcomes within studies: Findings from a cohort of systema c reviews. BMJ. 349:g6501. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6501; PMid:25416499 PMCid:PMC4240443

7. Hutton JL, Williamson PR. 2000. Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome vari- able selec on within studies. J Roy Stat Soc. 49:359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9876.00197

8. Du y JMN, McManus RJ. 2016. In uence of methodology upon the iden – ca on of poten al core outcomes. Recommenda ons for core outcome set developers are needed. BJOG. 123:1599.

9. Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gotzsche PC. 2010. De ni on, repor ng, and interpreta on of composite outcomes in clinical trials: Systema c review. BMJ. 341:c3920. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c3920; PMid:20719825 PMCid:PMC2923692

10. Libera A, Altman DG, Tetzla J et al. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporng systemayic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that eval- uate health care interven ons: Explana on and elabora on. J Clin Epidemiol. 62:e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006; PMid:19631507

11. Hirsch M, Du y JMN, Kusznir JO et al. 2016. Varia on in outcome report- ing in endometriosis trials: A systema c review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 214:452–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.039; PMid:26778385

12. Mya L, Redman CW, Sta AC et al. 2014. Strategy for standardizaon of preeclampsia research study design. Pregnancy Hypertens. 63:1293–1301.

13. Du y JMN, Rolph R, Gale C et al. 2017. Core outcome sets in women’s and newborn health: A systema c review. BJOG. 124:1481–1489. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14694; PMid:28421657

14. Du y JMN, Bha acharya S, Herman M et al. 2017. Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fer lity research. BJOG. 124:366–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14438; PMid:28120536

15. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM et al. 2012. Developing core out- come sets for clinical trials: Issues to consider. Trials. 13:132. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-132; PMid:22867278 PMCid:PMC3472231

16. Hirsch M, Du y JMN, Barker C et al. 2016. Protocol for developing, dissem- ina ng and implemen ng a core outcome set for endometriosis. BMJ Open. 6:e013998. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013998; PMid:28003300 PMCid:PMC5223702

17. Whitehouse KC, Kim CR, Ganatra B et al. 2017. Standardizing abor on research outcomes (STAR): A protocol for developing, dissemina ng and implemen ng a core outcome set for medical and surgical abor- on. Contraception. 95:437–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.12.009; PMid:28065833 PMCid:PMC5473939

18. van ‘t Hoo J, Du y JMN, Daly M et al. 2016. A core outcome set for evalua on of interven ons to prevent preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 127:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001195; PMid:26646133

19. Du y JMN, Hirsch M, Kawsar A et al. 2017. Outcome repor ng across randomised controlled trials evalua ng therapeu c interven ons for pre-eclampsia: A systema c review. BJOG. h ps://doi.org/ 10.1111/1471-0528.14702. Epub ahead of print.