19 results on '"Kirkham, Jamie J."'
Search Results
2. Evaluation of editors' abilities to predict the citation potential of research manuscripts submitted to The BMJ: a cohort study.
- Author
-
Schroter, Sara, Weber, Wim E. J., Loder, Elizabeth, Wilkinson, Jack, and Kirkham, Jamie J.
- Subjects
MANUSCRIPTS ,EDITORS ,SERIAL publications ,CITATION analysis ,PSYCHOSOCIAL factors ,DESCRIPTIVE statistics ,LONGITUDINAL method - Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Development of a consensus core dataset in juvenile dermatomyositis for clinical use to inform research
- Author
-
McCann, Liza J, Pilkington, Clarissa A, Huber, Adam M, Ravelli, Angelo, Appelbe, Duncan, Kirkham, Jamie J, Williamson, Paula R, Aggarwal, Amita, Christopher-Stine, Lisa, Constantin, Tamas, Feldman, Brian M, Lundberg, Ingrid, Maillard, Sue, Mathiesen, Pernille, Murphy, Ruth, Pachman, Lauren M, Reed, Ann M, Rider, Lisa G, van Royen-Kerkof, Annet, Russo, Ricardo, Spinty, Stefan, Wedderburn, Lucy R, and Beresford, Michael W
- Subjects
Consensus ,Adolescent ,Databases, Factual ,Delphi Technique ,dermatomyositis ,Research ,education ,Clinical and Epidemiological Research ,autoimmune diseases, dermatomyositis, multidisciplinary team-care, outcomes research, patient perspective ,patient perspective ,Data Collection/methods ,outcomes research ,multidisciplinary team-care ,Humans ,autoimmune diseases ,Child ,Dermatomyositis/diagnosis - Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop consensus on an internationally agreed dataset for juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM), designed for clinical use, to enhance collaborative research and allow integration of data between centres.METHODS: A prototype dataset was developed through a formal process that included analysing items within existing databases of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. This template was used to aid a structured multistage consensus process. Exploiting Delphi methodology, two web-based questionnaires were distributed to healthcare professionals caring for patients with JDM identified through email distribution lists of international paediatric rheumatology and myositis research groups. A separate questionnaire was sent to parents of children with JDM and patients with JDM, identified through established research networks and patient support groups. The results of these parallel processes informed a face-to-face nominal group consensus meeting of international myositis experts, tasked with defining the content of the dataset. This developed dataset was tested in routine clinical practice before review and finalisation.RESULTS: A dataset containing 123 items was formulated with an accompanying glossary. Demographic and diagnostic data are contained within form A collected at baseline visit only, disease activity measures are included within form B collected at every visit and disease damage items within form C collected at baseline and annual visits thereafter.CONCLUSIONS: Through a robust international process, a consensus dataset for JDM has been formulated that can capture disease activity and damage over time. This dataset can be incorporated into national and international collaborative efforts, including existing clinical research databases.
- Published
- 2017
4. Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial.
- Author
-
Blanco, David, Schroter, Sara, Aldcroft, Adrian, Moher, David, Boutron, Isabelle, Kirkham, Jamie J., and Cobo, Erik
- Abstract
Objective To evaluate the impact of an editorial intervention to improve completeness of reporting of reports of randomised trials. Design Randomised controlled trial (RCT). Setting BMJ Open’s quality improvement programme. Participants 24 manuscripts describing RCTs. Interventions We used an R Shiny application to randomise manuscripts (1:1 allocation ratio, blocks of 4) to the intervention (n=12) or control (n=12) group. The intervention was performed by a researcher with expertise in the content of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and consisted of an evaluation of completeness of reporting of eight core CONSORT items using the submitted checklist to locate information, and the production of a report containing specific requests for authors based on the reporting issues found, provided alongside the peer review reports. The control group underwent the usual peer review. Outcomes The primary outcome is the number of adequately reported items (0–8 scale) in the revised manuscript after the first round of peer review. The main analysis was intention-to-treat (n=24), and we imputed the scores of lost to follow-up manuscripts (rejected after peer review and not resubmitted). The secondary outcome is the proportion of manuscripts where each item was adequately reported. Two blinded reviewers assessed the outcomes independently and in duplicate and solved disagreements by consensus. We also recorded the amount of time to perform the intervention. Results Manuscripts in the intervention group (mean: 7.01; SD: 1.47) were more completely reported than those in the control group (mean: 5.68; SD: 1.43) (mean difference 1.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.58). We observed the main differences in items 6a (outcomes), 9 (allocation concealment mechanism), 11a (blinding) and 17a (outcomes and estimation). The mean time to perform the intervention was 87 (SD 42) min. Conclusions We demonstrated the benefit of involving a reporting guideline expert in the editorial process. Improving the completeness of RCTs is essential to enhance their usability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
- Author
-
Sterne, Jonathan A. C., Savović, Jelena, Page, Matthew J., Elbers, Roy G., Blencowe, Natalie S., Boutron, Isabelle, Cates, Christopher J., Hung-Yuan Cheng, Corbett, Mark S., Eldridge, Sandra M., Emberson, Jonathan R., Hernán, Miguel A., Hopewell, Sally, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Junqueira, Daniela R., Jüni, Peter, Kirkham, Jamie J., Lasserson, Toby, Tianjing Li, and McAleenan, Alexandra
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Protocol for the development of the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline: checklist of items for reporting pharmacogenetic studies.
- Author
-
Richardson, Marty, Kirkham, Jamie J., Dwan, Kerry M., Sloan, Derek J., Davies, Geraint, and Jorgensen, Andrea
- Abstract
Introduction Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Metaanalysis may be performed to synthesise data from several studies, increasing sample size and consequently power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging due to poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies. The aim of this project is to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. The STROPS guideline will facilitate the conduct of high-quality metaanalyses and thus improve the power to detect genetic associations. Methods and analysis We will establish a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We will then conduct a Delphi survey of key stakeholder groups to gain consensus opinion on which reporting items to include in the final guideline. The Delphi survey will consist of two rounds: the first round will invite participants to score items from the preliminary checklist and to suggest additional relevant items; the second round will provide feedback from the previous round and invite participants to re-score the items. Following the second round, we will summarise the distribution of scores for each item, stratified by stakeholder group. The Steering Committee for the project and representatives from the key stakeholder groups will meet to consider the results of the Delphi survey and to finalise the list of reporting items. We will then draft, pilot-test and publish the STROPS reporting guideline and accompanying explanatory document. Ethics and dissemination The University of Liverpool Ethics Committee has confirmed ethical approval for this study (reference: 3586). Dissemination activities will include presenting the reporting guideline at conferences relevant to pharmacogenetic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research.
- Author
-
Blanco, David, Altman, Doug, Moher, David, Boutron, Isabelle, Kirkham, Jamie J., and Cobo, Erik
- Abstract
Objectives The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far. Design Scoping review. Search strategy We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. Results 109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript. Conclusions This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Development of a consensus core dataset in juvenile dermatomyositis for clinical use to inform research.
- Author
-
McCann, Liza J., Pilkington, Clarissa A., Huber, Adam M., Ravelli, Angelo, Appelbe, Duncan, Kirkham, Jamie J., Williamson, Paula R., Aggarwal, Amita, Christopher-Stine, Lisa, Constantin, Tamas, Feldman, Brian M., Lundberg, Ingrid, Maillard, Sue, Mathiesen, Pernille, Murphy, Ruth, Pachman, Lauren M., Reed, Ann M., Rider, Lisa G., van Royen-Kerkof, Annet, and Russo, Ricardo
- Subjects
DERMATOMYOSITIS ,COMPARATIVE studies ,CONSENSUS (Social sciences) ,DATABASES ,DELPHI method ,RESEARCH methodology ,MEDICAL cooperation ,RESEARCH ,EVALUATION research ,ACQUISITION of data ,DIAGNOSIS - Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to develop consensus on an internationally agreed dataset for juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM), designed for clinical use, to enhance collaborative research and allow integration of data between centres.Methods: A prototype dataset was developed through a formal process that included analysing items within existing databases of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. This template was used to aid a structured multistage consensus process. Exploiting Delphi methodology, two web-based questionnaires were distributed to healthcare professionals caring for patients with JDM identified through email distribution lists of international paediatric rheumatology and myositis research groups. A separate questionnaire was sent to parents of children with JDM and patients with JDM, identified through established research networks and patient support groups. The results of these parallel processes informed a face-to-face nominal group consensus meeting of international myositis experts, tasked with defining the content of the dataset. This developed dataset was tested in routine clinical practice before review and finalisation.Results: A dataset containing 123 items was formulated with an accompanying glossary. Demographic and diagnostic data are contained within form A collected at baseline visit only, disease activity measures are included within form B collected at every visit and disease damage items within form C collected at baseline and annual visits thereafter.Conclusions: Through a robust international process, a consensus dataset for JDM has been formulated that can capture disease activity and damage over time. This dataset can be incorporated into national and international collaborative efforts, including existing clinical research databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol.
- Author
-
Blanco, David, Kirkham, Jamie J., Altman, Douglas G., Moher, David, Boutron, Isabelle, and Cobo, Erik
- Abstract
Introduction There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions. Methods and analysis Our review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peerreviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis.
- Author
-
Kirkham, Jamie J., Clarke, Mike, and Williamson, Paula R.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. National Audit of Seizure management in Hospitals (NASH): results of the national audit of adult epilepsy in the UK.
- Author
-
Dixon, Peter A., Kirkham, Jamie J., Marson, Anthony G., and Pearson, Mike G.
- Abstract
Objectives: About 100 000 people present to hospitals each year in England with an epileptic seizure. How they are managed is unknown; thus, the National Audit of Seizure management in Hospitals (NASH) set out to assess prior care, management of the acute event and follow-up of these patients. This paper describes the data from the second audit conducted in 2013. Setting: 154 emergency departments (EDs) across the UK. Participants: Data from 4544 attendances (median age of 45 years, 57% men) showed that 61% had a prior diagnosis of epilepsy, 12% other neurological problems and 22% were first seizure cases. Each ED identified 30 consecutive adult cases presenting due to a seizure. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Details were recorded of the patient's prior care, management at hospital and onward referral to neurological specialists onto an online database. Descriptive results are reported at national level. Results: Of those with epilepsy, 498 (18%) were on no antiepileptic drug therapy and 1330 (48%) were on monotherapy. Assessments were often incomplete and witness histories were sought in only 759 (75%) of first seizure patients, 58% were seen by a senior doctor and 57% were admitted. For first seizure patients, advice on further seizure management was given to 264 (27%) and only 55% were referred to a neurologist or epilepsy specialist. For each variable, there was wide variability among sites that was not explicable. For the sites who partook in both audits, there was a trend towards better care in 2013, but this was small and dwarfed by the intersite variability. Conclusions: These results have parallels with the Sentinel Audit of Stroke performed a decade earlier. There is wide intersite variability in care covering the entire care pathway, and a need for better organised and accessible care for these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Do systematic reviews still exclude studies with “no relevant outcome data”?
- Author
-
Dwan, Kerry M., Williamson, Paula R., and Kirkham, Jamie J.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension.
- Author
-
Hodkinson, Alex, Kirkham, Jamie J., Tudur-Smith, Catrin, and Gamble, Carrol
- Abstract
Objective: To determine the standard of reporting of harms-related data, in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for harms. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: The Cochrane library, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant literature. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: We included publications of studies that used the CONSORT harms extension to assess the reporting of harms in RCTs. Results: We identified 7 studies which included between 10 and 205 RCTs. The clinical areas of the 7 studies were: hypertension (1), urology (1), epilepsy (1), complimentary medicine (2) and two not restricted to a clinical topic. Quality of the 7 studies was assessed by a risk of bias tool and was found to be variable. Adherence to the CONSORT harms criteria reported in the 7 studies was inadequate and variable across the items in the checklist. Adverse events are poorly defined, with 6 studies failing to exceed 50% adherence to the items in the checklist. Conclusions: Readers of RCT publications need to be able to balance the trade-offs between benefits and harms of interventions. This systematic review suggests that this is compromised due to poor reporting of harms which is evident across a range of clinical areas. Improvements in quality could be achieved by wider adoption of the CONSORT harms criteria by journals reporting RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
14. Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis.
- Author
-
Dwan, Kerry, Kirkham, Jamie J., Williamson, Paula R., and Gamble, Carrol
- Abstract
Background: Outcome reporting bias (ORB) in randomised trials has been identified as a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Previous work highlighting this problem is limited to considering a single primary review outcome. The aim of this study was to assess ORB across all efficacy outcomes in the Cochrane systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis. Methods: Systematic reviews of interventions for cystic fibrosis published on the Cochrane Library by the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group before 2010 were assessed for discrepancies in outcomes between review protocol and full review. ORB in eligible trials was also assessed for all efficacy review outcomes. Two authors independently classified each outcome using a nine-point classification system developed by the Outcome Reporting Bias In Trials study. These classifications were used to inform the assessment of the risk of bias for selective outcome reporting for each trial. Results: -46 Cochrane cystic fibrosis systematic reviews were included. The median number of primary outcomes, number of trials and participants per trial in the reviews were 3 (IQR 2, 3), 4 (IQR 2, 8) and 21 (IQR 14, 41), respectively. 18 reviews (39%, 18/46) had a discrepancy in outcomes between protocol and full review. 37 reviews were eligible to be included in the ORB assessment. When considering review primary outcomes and all review outcomes, ORB was suspected in at least one trial in 86% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: Assessment of ORB within a systematic review of a single primary outcome underestimates the risk of ORB in comparison to the assessment of multiple primary and secondary outcomes. ORB in trials is highly prevalent within systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis when assessed across all outcomes. This could be reduced by the development of a core outcome set for trials and systematic reviews in cystic fibrosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. Cross-sectional study of prescribing errors in patients admitted to nine hospitals across North West England.
- Author
-
Seden, Kay, Kirkham, Jamie J., Kennedy, Tom, Lloyd, Michael, James, Sally, Mcmanus, Aine, Ritchings, Andrew, Simpson, Jennifer, Thornton, Dave, Gill, Andrea, Coleman, Carolyn, Thorpe, Bethan, and Khoo, Saye H.
- Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the prevalence, type and severity of prescribing errors observed between grades of prescriber, ward area, admission or discharge and type of medication prescribed. Design: Ward-based clinical pharmacists prospectively documented prescribing errors at the point of clinically checking admission or discharge prescriptions. Error categories and severities were assigned at the point of data collection, and verified independently by the study team. Setting: Prospective study of nine diverse National Health Service hospitals in North West England, including teaching hospitals, district hospitals and specialist services for paediatrics, women and mental health. Results: Of 4238 prescriptions evaluated, one or more error was observed in 1857 (43.8%) prescriptions, with a total of 3011 errors observed. Of these, 1264 (41.9%) were minor, 1629 (54.1%) were significant, 109 (3.6%) were serious and 9 (0.30%) were potentially life threatening. The majority of errors considered to be potentially lethal (n=9) were dosing errors (n=8), mostly relating to overdose (n=7). The rate of error was not significantly different between newly qualified doctors compared with junior, middle grade or senior doctors. Multivariable analyses revealed the strongest predictor of error was the number of items on a prescription (risk of error increased 14% for each additional item). We observed a high rate of error from medication omission, particularly among patients admitted acutely into hospital. Electronic prescribing systems could potentially have prevented up to a quarter of (but not all) errors. Conclusions: In contrast to other studies, prescriber experience did not impact on overall error rate (although there were qualitative differences in error category). Given that multiple drug therapies are now the norm for many medical conditions, health systems should introduce and retain safeguards which detect and prevent error, in addition to continuing training and education, and migration to electronic prescribing systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
16. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews.
- Author
-
Kirkham, Jamie J., Dwan, Kerry M., Altman, Douglas G., Gamble, Carrol, Dodd, Susanna, Smyth, Rebecca, and Williamson, Paula R.
- Subjects
- *
HEALTH outcome assessment , *RESEARCH bias , *MEDICAL research , *MEASUREMENT errors , *THERAPEUTICS ,RESEARCH evaluation - Abstract
The article discusses the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials (ORBIT) study which estimated the prevalence of outcome reporting bias using a classification system for the assessment of selective outcome reporting. The study utilized data from a cohort of new reviews from 50 of the 51 Cochrane collaboration reviews groups published in "Cochrane Library." It found that outcome reporting bias is prevalent in research but is under-recognized. Study authors also discovered the impact of outcome reporting bias on treatment. The implications of study findings for systemic reviews and clinical trials are also discussed.
- Published
- 2010
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
17. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews.
- Author
-
Pooja Saini, Yoon K Loke, Gamble, Carrol, Altman, Douglas G., Williamson, Paula R., and Kirkham, Jamie J.
- Subjects
EVALUATION of medical care ,MEDICINE ,META-analysis ,REPORT writing ,SERIAL publications ,DATA analysis ,HARM reduction ,RESEARCH bias ,EVALUATION - Abstract
The article presents a study aimed at identifying whether authors of primary studies suppress or partially report data on harm outcomes for bias related reasons. It is concluded that outcome reporting bias (ORB) may happen when the harm outcome has been measured, but the data are suppressed in a manner that would hide the harm profile of particular interventions. A table showing the classification system of harm outcomes is presented.
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
18. Neonatal encephalopathy: a systematic review of reported treatment outcomes.
- Author
-
Quirke F, Biesty L, Battin M, Bloomfield FH, Daly M, Finucane E, Healy P, Hurley T, Kirkham JJ, Molloy E, Haas DM, Meher S, Ní Bhraonáin E, Walker K, Webbe J, and Devane D
- Subjects
- Humans, Infant, Newborn, Treatment Outcome, Infant, Newborn, Diseases therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Hypothermia, Induced methods, Brain Diseases therapy
- Abstract
Background: Neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a multi-organ condition potentially leading to death or long-term neurodisability. Therapeutic hypothermia is the standard treatment for NE; however, long-term impairments remain common. Studies of new treatments for NE often measure and report different outcomes. Core outcome sets (COSs), a minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all studies for a condition, address this problem. This paper aimed to identify outcomes reported (primary, secondary, adverse events and other reported outcomes) in (1) randomised trials and (2) systematic reviews of randomised trials of interventions for the treatment of NE in the process of developing a COS for interventions for the treatment of NE., Methods: We completed a systematic search for outcomes used to evaluate treatments for NE using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two reviewers screened all included articles independently. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, similar outcomes were grouped and outcome domains were developed., Results: 386 outcomes were reported in 116 papers, from 85 studies. Outcomes were categorised into 18 domains. No outcome was reported by all studies, a single study reported 11 outcomes and it was not explicitly stated that outcomes had input from parents., Discussion: Heterogeneity in reported outcomes means that synthesis of studies evaluating new treatments for NE remains difficult. A COS, that includes parental/family input, is needed to ensure consistency in measuring and reporting outcomes, and to enable comparison of randomised trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
19. Core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy: a qualitative study with parents.
- Author
-
Quirke F, Ariff S, Battin M, Bernard C, Bloomfield FH, Daly M, Devane D, Haas DM, Healy P, Hurley T, Kibet V, Kirkham JJ, Koskei S, Meher S, Molloy E, Niaz M, Ní Bhraonáin E, Okaronon CO, Tabassum F, Walker K, and Biesty L
- Subjects
- Asphyxia, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Parents psychology, Asphyxia Neonatorum therapy, Hypoxia-Ischemia, Brain therapy, Infant, Newborn, Diseases
- Abstract
Objective: To identify the outcomes considered important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia in high-income and low- to middle-income countries (LMiCs), as part of the outcome-identification process in developing a core outcome set (COS) for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy., Design: A qualitative study involving 25 semistructured interviews with parents or other family members (caregivers) of infants who were diagnosed with, and treated for, neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia., Setting: Interviews were conducted in high-income countries (HiCs) (n=11) by Zoom video conferencing software and in LMiCs (n=14) by phone or face to face., Findings: Parents identified 54 outcomes overall, which mapped to 16 outcome domains. The domains identified were neurological outcomes, respiratory outcomes, gastrointestinal outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, motor development, cognitive development, development (psychosocial), development (special senses), cognitive development, development (speech and social), other organ outcomes, survival/living outcomes, long-term disability, hospitalisation, parent-reported outcomes and adverse events., Conclusions: This study provides insight into the outcomes that parents of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy have identified as the most important, to be considered in the process of developing a COS for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. We also provide description of the processes employed to ensure the inclusion of participants from LMiCs as well as HiCs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No, there are no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.