Outcome reporting in cardio-obstetrics studies: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although considerable variation in the reporting and definition of outcomes in cardio-obstetrics studies is acknowledged, the extent of this variation has not been documented. The primary objective of this systematic review was to highlight this variation and inform the development of a Core Outcome Set for studies on Cardiac disease in Pregnancy (COSCarP). METHODS: Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central databases were searched from 1980 to 2018 to identify all English-language publications on pregnancy and heart disease. Title/abstract screening and data extraction which included details on the study, patient population, and all reported outcomes, was performed in duplicate by 2 reviewers. As the aim of the review was to identify variation in outcome reporting, risk-of-bias assessment was not performed. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016038218). RESULTS: The final analysis included 422 cardio-obstetric studies. Maternal mortality or survival were reported in 232/422 studies, with inconsistency in terms of cause of death (all-cause [n = 65], cardiac [n = 55] or obstetric [n = 10]) or timeframe (ranging from in-hospital mortality [n = 11] to mortality 5 years following pregnancy). In 95/232 (41%) studies, the cause and timeframe were not specified. Similar inconsistencies in reporting and definitions were noted for outcomes such as heart failure (n = 298), perinatal loss (n = 296), fetal growth (n = 221), bleeding (n = 205), arrhythmias (n = 202), preterm birth (n = 191), thromboembolism (n = 153) and hypertensive disorders (n = 122). Functioning / life-impact and adverse effects of treatment were sparingly reported in published cardio-obstetric studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review hopes to create awareness among cardio-obstetrics teams about the inconsistencies in reporting and defining outcomes which makes it difficult to compare studies and perform meta-analyses. COSCarP which is being developed through international consensus between patients and care-providers will provide cardio-obstetrics teams with a minimal set of outcomes to be reported in future cardio-obstetrics studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.114 | 0.379 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".