Core outcome set for studies on pregnant women with vasa previa (COVasP): a study protocol

Rohan D'Souza, Linda Villani, Chelsea Hall, Meron Seyoum, John Kingdom, Michael Krznaric, Natasha Donnolley, Nasrin Javid, Rohan D'Souza, Linda Villani, Chelsea Hall, Meron Seyoum, John Kingdom, Michael Krznaric, Natasha Donnolley, Nasrin Javid

Abstract

Introduction: Vasa previa is a condition where fetal blood vessels run unprotected in the membranes, outside the umbilical cord, and cross the internal opening of the cervix. During rupture of membranes, these vessels can rupture and put the baby at serious risk of severe blood loss and death. Numerous studies are being conducted to improve diagnostic modalities and establish clear management plans to improve pregnancy outcomes. However, the lack of a standardised set of outcomes for studies on vasa previa makes it difficult to compare study findings and draw meaningful conclusions. Through this project, we will be developing a core outcome set for studies on pregnant women with vasa previa (COVasP).

Methods and analysis: The development of COVasP will involve five steps. The first will be a systematic review, in which we will generate a long list of outcomes based on published studies in pregnancies complicated with vasa previa. The second will involve in-depth interviews with current and former patients, their family members and healthcare providers who care for these patients. This will be followed by a two-round Delphi survey, which will aim to narrow down the long list of outcomes into those considered important by four groups of 'stakeholders': (1) patients, family members and patient advocates/representatives, (2) healthcare providers, (3) researchers, epidemiologists and methodologists and (4) other stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the management of these pregnancies such as administrators, guideline developers and policymakers. The fourth step will involve a face-to-face consensus meeting using a nominal group approach to establish a finalised core outcome set. The final step will involve measuring and defining the identified outcomes using a combination of systematic reviews and Delphi surveys.

Ethics and dissemination: This study as well as consent forms for stakeholder participation have received approval from the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB number 18-0173-E) on 05 September 2018 and the Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of Technology Sydney, Australia on 30 July 2019 (UTS HREC reference number ETH19-3718). All progress will be documented on the international prospective register of systematic reviews and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials databases. REGISTRATION DETAILS: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1117.

Keywords: core outcome set; stakeholder and patient-reported outcomes; vasa previa; velamentous cord insertion.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: MK and ND are directors and NJ is a member of the International Vasa Previa Foundation that has provided part funding for this project. RD has received speaking honoraria from Ferring, Canada for presentations unrelated to this project.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Steps in the development of a core outcome set for studies on vasa previa.

References

    1. Baergen R. Manual of pathology of the human placenta. Second ed Boston, MA: Springer, 2011.
    1. Benirschke K, Burton G, Baergen R. Pathology of the human placenta. Sixth ed Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2012.
    1. Pavalagantharajah S, Villani LA, D’Souza R. Vasa previa and associated risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020:100117 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100117
    1. Ruiter L, Kok N, Limpens J, et al. . Incidence of and risk indicators for vasa praevia: a systematic review. BJOG 2016;123:1278–87. 10.1111/1471-0528.13829
    1. Sullivan EA, Javid N, Duncombe G, et al. . Vasa previa diagnosis, clinical practice, and outcomes in Australia. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:591–8. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002198
    1. Oyelese Y, Catanzarite V, Prefumo F, et al. . Vasa previa: the impact of prenatal diagnosis on outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:937–42. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000123245.48645.98
    1. Javid N, Hyett JA, Walker SP, et al. . A survey of opinion and practice regarding prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa among obstetricians from Australia and New Zealand. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019;144:252–9. 10.1002/ijgo.12747
    1. Javid N, Sullivan EA, Halliday LE, et al. . "Wrapping myself in cotton wool": Australian women's experience of being diagnosed with vasa praevia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:318. 10.1186/1471-2393-14-318
    1. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. . The comet Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017;18:280. 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4
    1. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al. . Core outcome Set-STAndardised protocol items: the COS-STAP statement. Trials 2019;20:116. 10.1186/s13063-019-3230-x
    1. Dadouch R, Faheim M, Juando-Prats C, et al. . Development of a core outcome set for studies on obesity in pregnant patients (COSSOPP): a study protocol. Trials 2018;19:655. 10.1186/s13063-018-3029-1
    1. D'Souza R, Hall C, Sermer M, et al. . Development of a core outcome set for studies on cardiac disease in pregnancy (COSCarP): a study protocol. Trials 2020;21:300. 10.1186/s13063-020-04233-1
    1. Keeley T, Williamson P, Callery P, et al. . The use of qualitative methods to inform Delphi surveys in core outcome set development. Trials 2016;17:230. 10.1186/s13063-016-1356-7
    1. Javid N, Hyett JA, Homer CS. Providing quality care for women with vasa praevia: challenges and barriers faced by Australian midwives. Midwifery 2019;68:91–8. 10.1016/j.midw.2018.10.011
    1. Javid N, Hyett JA, Homer CSE. The experience of vasa praevia for Australian midwives: a qualitative study. Women Birth 2019;32:185–92. 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.06.020
    1. Elliott R, Timulak L. Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research : Miles J, Paul G, A Handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology. Oxford University Press, 2005: 147–59.
    1. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, 1990.
    1. Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 2007.
    1. Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health 1997;20:169–77. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199704)20:2<169::AID-NUR9>;2-I
    1. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1000393. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393
    1. Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, et al. . A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;96:84–92. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.020
    1. King A, D’Souza R, Teshler L NS, et al. . The development of a core outcome set for studies on pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism (COSPVenTE): a study protocol. BMJ Open 2020. [This paper has been accepted by BMJ Open. Please add appropriate reference details].
    1. Villani LA, Pavalagantharajah S, D’Souza R. Variations in reported outcomes in studies on vasa previa: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020:100116 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100116
    1. CDC Gaining consensus among stakeholders through the nominal group technique. evaluation Briefs (7): United States department of health and human services. centers for disease control and prevention, 2018. Available:
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, 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;19:539–49. 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8
    1. Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. . How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a "Core Outcome Set" - a practical guideline. Trials 2016;17:449. 10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner