MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Core Outcome Set for Studies on Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy (COSCarP): An International Delphi Consensus Study

2025· article· en· W4412954416 on OpenAlexaff
Rizwana Ashraf, Hong He, Candice Silversides, Samuel C. Siu, Mathew Sermer, Anish Keepanasseril, Meron Seyoum, Isabelle Malhamé, Rohan D’Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCanadian Heart Research CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyDelphi methodOutcome (game theory)Core (optical fiber)DiseaseIntensive care medicineDelphiSet (abstract data type)ObstetricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Outcome reporting in cardio-obstetrics studies is inconsistent. The objective of the COSCarP (Core Outcome Set on Cardiac Diseases in Pregnancy) study was to develop a core outcome set through international consensus and harmonize outcome reporting in cardio-obstetrics studies. METHODS: We conducted a multimethod study between February 2021 and April 2023 that included an online 2-round Delphi survey, 3 small group discussions and a consensus meeting with health service users (people with lived experience of pregnancy and heart disease) and health care professionals. RESULTS: A total of 110 participants (22 health service users and 88 health care professionals) from 13 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America scored 71 candidate items obtained through literature reviews and qualitative interviews. Participants identified 12 core outcomes and 12 core reporting checklist items (which may not always represent outcomes) for inclusion in all cardio-obstetrics studies. Core outcomes included: maternal mortality, cardiac arrest, cerebrovascular events, heart failure, arrhythmias requiring treatment or change in treatment, thromboembolism, syncope, maternal intensive care unit admission, cardiovascular interventions, fetal/neonatal loss (miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death), severe neonatal morbidity, and prolonged neonatal intensive care unit admission. Reporting checklist items included: hypertensive disorders, major bleeding, anesthetic complications, adverse reactions, labor and birth details, maternal hospitalization and re-admissions, treatment compliance, fetal growth restriction, congenital malformations, gestational age at birth, and nonsevere neonatal morbidity. Participants also identified 7 condition-specific outcomes and 7 other patient-important outcomes, which may be challenging to measure in all studies and should be reported when feasible and relevant. CONCLUSIONS: The COSCarP study has identified core outcomes, reporting checklist items, and patient-important outcomes, which researchers are encouraged to measure and report in future cardio-obstetrics studies. Widespread use of the COSCarP checklists could support data harmonization, enable meaningful comparisons between studies, facilitate meta-analyses, and ensure that future guidelines incorporate patient-important outcomes while making clinical practice recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.544
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.026 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207