Title |
A core outcome set for studies evaluating the effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes
|
---|---|
Published in |
Diabetologia, April 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00125-017-4277-4 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Aoife M. Egan, Sander Galjaard, Michael J. A. Maresh, Mary R. Loeken, Angela Napoli, Eleni Anastasiou, Eoin Noctor, Harold W. de Valk, Mireille van Poppel, Marie Todd, Valerie Smith, Declan Devane, Fidelma P. Dunne |
Abstract |
The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials and other studies evaluating the effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational (pre-existing) diabetes mellitus. A systematic literature review was completed to identify all outcomes reported in prior studies in this area. Key stakeholders then prioritised these outcomes using a Delphi study. The list of outcomes included in the final COS were finalised at a face-to-face consensus meeting. In total, 17 outcomes were selected and agreed on for inclusion in the final COS. These outcomes were grouped under three domains: measures of pregnancy preparation (n = 9), neonatal outcomes (n = 6) and maternal outcomes (n = 2). This study identified a COS essential for studies evaluating prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes. It is advocated that all trials and other non-randomised studies and audits in this area use this COS with the aim of improving transparency and the ability to compare and combine future studies with greater ease. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Ireland | 10 | 29% |
United Kingdom | 10 | 29% |
Canada | 3 | 9% |
Germany | 1 | 3% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Oman | 1 | 3% |
Portugal | 1 | 3% |
Cabo Verde | 1 | 3% |
Australia | 1 | 3% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 5 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 18 | 53% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 26% |
Scientists | 6 | 18% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
Other | 6 | 7% |
Researcher | 6 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
Other | 20 | 24% |
Unknown | 26 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 33% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 17% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
Psychology | 2 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 5% |
Unknown | 31 | 37% |