MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179187735 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16825

A core outcome set for the treatment of pregnant women with pregestational diabetes: an international consensus study

2021· review· en· W3179187735 on OpenAlexaff
Oratile Kgosidialwa, Delia Bogdanet, Aoife M. Egan, Paula O’Shea, Christine Newman, Tomás P. Griffin, C McDonagh, C O'Shea, Louise Carmody, Shamil D. Cooray, E. Anastasiou, Ewa Wender‐Ożegowska, Cheril Clarson, Alexandra Spadola, Fernanda Alvarado, Eoin Noctor, Eugene Dempsey, Angela Napoli, Caroline A Crowther, Sander Galjaard, Mary R. Loeken, M. Maresh, Paddy Gillespie, Harold de Valk, Andrea Agostini, Linda Biesty, Declan Devane, Fidelma Dunne

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesIrish Research eLibraryWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesMiscarriagePregnancyPopulationRandomized controlled trialObstetricsPsychological interventionGestational agePediatricsGestationNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM). DESIGN: A consensus developmental study. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Two hundred and five stakeholders completed the first round. METHODS: The study consisted of three components. (1) A systematic review of the literature to produce a list of outcomes reported in RCTs assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. (2) A three-round, online eDelphi survey to prioritise these outcomes by international stakeholders (including healthcare professionals, researchers and women with PGDM). (3) A consensus meeting where stakeholders from each group decided on the final COS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All outcomes were extracted from the literature. RESULTS: We extracted 131 unique outcomes from 67 records meeting the full inclusion criteria. Of the 205 stakeholders who completed the first round, 174/205 (85%) and 165/174 (95%) completed rounds 2 and 3, respectively. Participants at the subsequent consensus meeting chose 19 outcomes for inclusion into the COS: trimester-specific haemoglobin A1c, maternal weight gain during pregnancy, severe maternal hypoglycaemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, miscarriage, pregnancy-induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia, maternal death, birthweight, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, gestational age at birth, preterm birth, mode of birth, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycaemia, congenital malformations, stillbirth and neonatal death. CONCLUSIONS: This COS will enable better comparison between RCTs to produce robust evidence synthesis, improve trial reporting and optimise research efficiency in studies assessing treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: 165 key stakeholders have developed #Treatment #CoreOutcomes in pregnant women with #diabetes existing before pregnancy.

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)0.469
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.580
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4690.580
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.018
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0080.012
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207