MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903077548 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-3029-1

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies on Obesity in Pregnant Patients (COSSOPP): a study protocol

2018· article· en· W2903077548 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Dadouch, Mina Faheim, Clara Juandó‐Prats, Janet Parsons, Rohan D’Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodPsychological interventionProtocol (science)Outcome (game theory)PopulationSystematic reviewStakeholderMEDLINEClinical trialFamily medicinePediatricsAlternative medicineNursingPublic relationsEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maternal obesity is a risk factor for adverse maternal, fetal, and neonatal events. Numerous clinical trials are currently exploring the effectiveness of antenatal and peripartum interventions in improving pregnancy outcomes that can in future inform clinical practice. However, the heterogeneity in outcome reporting limits our ability to compare outcomes across studies, and there is a lack of stakeholder representation in outcome choice. A pragmatic solution to this problem is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that defines the minimum criteria for outcome reporting in clinical trials undertaken in this population, arrived at by the involvement of relevant stakeholders. METHODS: The development of a COS for studies on obesity in pregnant patients (COSSOPP) will comprise five steps. First, a systematic review of published literature will identify the long list of outcomes, their definitions and measurements if applicable, and outcome reporting quality. This will be followed by a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies with patients, and qualitative interviews in Toronto with patients, clinicians, researchers, hospital administrators, and policy-makers, to identify novel outcomes that were not obtained through systematic review. Third, the long list of outcomes will be narrowed down through online Delphi surveys involving an international group of patients and relevant stakeholders. This will be followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting with representatives of all stakeholder groups to arrive at a consensus on the final COS. Finally, in order to determine how the identified core outcomes should be measured, we will conduct another literature review and Delphi process. DISCUSSION: COSSOPP will engage patients, clinicians, researchers, and other relevant stakeholders in determining the core set of outcomes that should be reported and measured in order to harmonize outcome reporting in studies evaluating the effectiveness of antepartum and peripartum interventions in obese pregnant women. This protocol provides a detailed overview of the steps involved in the development of a COS, to guide researchers in developing COS within their areas of specialization. COMET CORE OUTCOME SET REGISTRATION: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/939 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.227
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.207
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2270.207
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.013
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.820
GPT teacher head0.666
Teacher spread0.154 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207