The CROWN Initiative: Journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women's health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials, systematic reviews, and guidelines compare beneficial and nonbeneficial outcomes following interventions. Often, however, various studies on a particular topic do not address the same outcomes, making it difficult to draw clinically useful conclusions when a group of studies is looked at as a whole [1]. This problem was recently thrown into sharp focus by a systematic review of interventions for preterm birth prevention, which found that among 103 randomized trials, no fewer than 72 different outcomes were reported [2]. There is a growing recognition among clinical researchers that this variability undermines consistent synthesis of the evidence, and that what is needed is an agreed standardized collection of outcomes—a “core outcomes set”—for all trials in a specific clinical area [1]. Recognizing that the current inconsistency is a serious hindrance to progress in our specialty, the editors of over 50 journals related to women's health have come together to support The CROWN (CoRe Outcomes in WomeN's health) Initiative (Box 1). Form a consortium among all gynecology-obstetrics and related journals to promote core outcome sets in all areas of our specialty. Encourage researchers to develop core outcome sets using robust consensus methodology involving multiple stakeholders, including patients. Strongly encourage the reporting of results for core outcome sets. Organize robust peer review and effective dissemination of manuscripts describing core outcome sets. Facilitate embedding of core outcome sets in research practice, working closely with researchers, reviewers, funders, and guideline makers. www.crown-initiative.org Development of consensus is required around a set of well-defined, relevant, and feasible outcomes for all trials concerning particular obstetric and gynecologic health conditions, such as preterm birth, incontinence, infertility, and menstrual problems. With so many subspecialties involved, this is no easy task. Duplication of effort can be avoided by working with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative, which is working toward core datasets for all medical specialties [3]. Production of trustworthy core outcome sets will require engagement with patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, industry, and regulators, and the employment of scientifically robust consensus methods [1]. The data for these core outcome sets, once agreed upon, should be collected in trials and reported in publications as standard practice in the future. Journal editors now invite researchers to take the lead in beginning this work. What will we do as editors to support them and their colleagues? First, we are drawing wide attention to The CROWN Initiative by publishing this editorial in the journals listed in Appendix A. We shall ensure that the global research community, which includes our many reviewers, is aware of the need for core outcome sets. Submissions which describe development of core outcome sets, if deemed acceptable after peer review, will be effectively disseminated. Our collaboration is not for enforcing harmony at the expense of innovation. To quote from the COMET home page (www.comet-initiative.org): “The existence or use of a core outcome set does not imply that outcomes in a particular trial should be restricted to those in the relevant core outcome set. Rather, there is an expectation that the core outcomes will be collected and reported, making it easier for the results of trials to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate; while researchers continue to explore other outcomes as well.” We also expect that as new or superior ways of capturing outcomes emerge, core outcome sets will themselves need updating. Producing, disseminating, and implementing core outcome sets will ensure that critical and important outcomes with good measurement properties are incorporated and reported. We believe this is the next important step in advancing the usefulness of research, in informing readers, including guideline and policy developers, who are involved in decision-making, and in improving evidence-based practice. The CROWN Initiative is grateful to James Duffy. Conflict of interest None to declare. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology American Journal of Perinatology Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Best Practice & Research: Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth BMC Women's Health Climacteric Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics in Perinatology Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Contraception Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology Fertility and Sterility Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy Ginekologia Polska Gynecological Surgery Gynecologic Oncology Gynecologic Oncology Reports Human Fertility Human Reproduction Human Reproduction Update Hypertension in Pregnancy International Journal of Fertility and Sterility International Breastfeeding Journal International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics International Urogynecology Journal Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing Journal of Perinatal Medicine Maturitas MCN The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing Menopause Review (Przegląd Menopauzalny) Menopause: The Journal of The North American Menopause Society Neurourology and Urodynamics Obstetrics & Gynecology Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology Placenta Prenatal Diagnosis Reproductive Health The Breast Journal The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (TOG) Twin Research and Human Genetics Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".