Search

Evaluation is a crucial stage in the manufacture of products using design and development research approaches. In this article, the applicability of the identity development model for delinquent adolescents in Malaysia was assessed from an Islamic perspective. This evaluation stage was conducted by applying the modified nominal group technique based on users’ (end users) perceptions of the model. A total of six users were selected as participants, including entrepreneurs, principals, and instructors with experience in managing, shaping, developing, and restoring the identity of adolescents in moral rehabilitation centers. Participants were grouped into workshops and given questionnaires using the likert scale to assess the usability of the model. The score on the scale was converted into a percentage that determined the degree of usability. The results of the study revealed that all four key components of the self-development model for delinquent adolescents in Malaysia according to the Islamic perspective (induction set, spiritual development, physical development, and follow-up programs) were endorsed by the consumer group with a percentage value of more than 70 percent. The developed model is suitable as a guide for stakeholders to develop the identity of delinquent adolescents in Malaysia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: One of the most serious non-communicable diseases is diabetes kidney disease (DKD) which will progress to end-stage renal failure if not managed properly. Thus, the patient must be given proper educational and self-management information in managing their disease. Therefore, in line with the current trend and the convenience of using smartphones, a mobile application will be developed for this purpose. The objective of this study was to determine the main content and sub-contents for the educational and self-management features of mobile apps specifically designed for DKD patients. Methods: A modified nominal group technique (mNGT) has been used with five experts related to DKD management and two potential mobile apps consumers gathered face to face physically and virtually for about 3 hours. The e-booklet of the proposed mobile apps’ main contents and sub-contents was given to participants a week prior to mNGT meeting. Results: During the meeting, the participants generated and discussed their ideas resulting in no changes for 8 items of main content, but 4 items were added on top of the original proposed 46 sub-contents. After six days, the participant’s most voted mobile apps sub-content was “diabetes medication”, “co-morbidities medication” and “checking blood glucose at home” with a 100% score for each. Two items under the sub-contents of the patient’s data, namely “email” and “address” were rated below 70%, with scores of 65.71% and 68.57% respectively. A voting score of other items are in between 77.14% - 97.14%. All the main content and sub-content items that have been rated more than 70% will be included in the mobile apps for DKD patients. Two sub-content items that rated below 70% were removed. Conclusion: The mNGT is very useful in gathering experts and consumers to generate ideas and perform a group discussion to determine the items that qualify for inclusion in the content and sub-content of mobile apps. The individual voting and ranking finally concluded the eight items of main contents and 48 sub-content items proposed will be used for an educational and self-management mobile apps for DKD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity and represents a clinical dilemma. Interventions include expectant management with early preterm delivery if there are signs of fetal compromise, selective termination of the compromised twin, fetoscopic laser coagulation of the communicating placental vessels or termination of the whole pregnancy. Previous studies evaluating interventions have reported many different outcomes and outcome measures. Such variation makes comparing, contrasting, and combining results challenging, limiting ongoing research on this uncommon condition to inform clinical practice. We aim to produce, disseminate, and implement a core outcome set for selective fetal growth restriction research in monochorionic twin pregnancies. Methods An international steering group, including professionals, researchers, and lay experts, has been established to oversee the development of this core outcome set. The methods have been guided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative Handbook. Potential core outcomes will be developed by undertaking a systematic review of studies evaluating interventions for selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies. Potential core outcomes will be entered into a three-round Delphi survey and key stakeholders including clinical professionals, researchers, and lay experts will be invited to participate. Repeated reflection and rescoring of individual outcomes should encourage group and individual stakeholder convergence towards consensus outcomes which will be entered into a modified Nominal Group Technique to finalize the core outcome set. Once core outcomes have been agreed, we will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for each outcome. Discussion The development, dissemination, and implementation of a core outcome set for selective fetal growth restriction should ensure that future research protocols select, collect, and report outcomes and outcome measures in a standardized manner. Data synthesis will be possible on a broad level and rigorous implementation should advance the quality of research studies and their effective use in order to guide clinical practice, improve patient care, maternal, short-term perinatal outcomes, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Trial registration Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) registration number: 998. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42018092697. 18th April 2018.

Study Question: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed?Summary Answer: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility.What Is Known Already: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret.Study Design, Size, Duration: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.Trial Registration Number: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?Summary Answer: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified.What Is Known Already: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems.Study Design, Size, Duration: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions.Wider Implications Of the Findings: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.Study Funding/ Competing Interest(s): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form.Trial Registration Number: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?Summary Answer: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified.What Is Known Already: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems.Study Design, Size, Duration: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions.Wider Implications Of the Findings: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed?Summary Answer: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility.What Is Known Already: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret.Study Design, Size, Duration: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.Trial Registration Number: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia.Design: Consensus development study.Setting: International.Population: Two hundred and eight-one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated.Methods: Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique.Results: A long-list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre-eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in-depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. Forty-seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support.Conclusions: The core outcome set for pre-eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies.Tweetable Abstract: 281 healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 women have developed #preeclampsia core outcomes @HOPEoutcomes @jamesmnduffy. [Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the order has been corrected.]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today's business leaders are increasingly forced to make quick and precise decisions. Making decisions is at the core of management. To make the correct and rational decisions, a manager has to gather as much information as possible to be able to choose from various options and their imaginable consequences. In the vital organizations such as, healthcare facility (HF) in every country, make a good and precise decision is so crucial. When the manager decides to collect/select wards for his/her HF, it is an important decision to select the finest wards. This decision needs a list of comprehensive and accurate managerial criteria. The processes which presented in this study can solve this issue. To show this, in a case study, it started with gathering criteria and the name of potential wards by modified nominal group technique through interview sessions with experts. Then, weighting the potential wards based on criteria by the viewpoints of experts through the Weighted Sum Method. Finally, the wards will be priorities based on which one has the best for the HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a core outcome set for endometriosis.Design: Consensus development study.Setting: International.Population: One hundred and sixteen healthcare professionals, 31 researchers and 206 patient representatives.Methods: Modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique.Results: The final core outcome set includes three core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for pain and other symptoms associated with endometriosis: overall pain; improvement in the most troublesome symptom; and quality of life. In addition, eight core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for infertility associated with endometriosis were identified: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound; pregnancy loss, including ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy; live birth; time to pregnancy leading to live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital abnormalities. Two core outcomes applicable to all trials were also identified: adverse events and patient satisfaction with treatment.Conclusions: Using robust consensus science methods, healthcare professionals, researchers and women with endometriosis have developed a core outcome set to standardise outcome selection, collection and reporting across future randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for endometriosis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @coreoutcomes for future #endometriosis research have been developed @jamesmnduffy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop, using a Delphi procedure and a nominal group technique, a core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating treatments for twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), which should assist in standardizing outcome selection, collection and reporting in future research studies.Methods: An international steering group comprising healthcare professionals, researchers and patients with experience of TTTS guided the development of this COS. Potential core outcomes, identified through a comprehensive literature review and supplemented by outcomes suggested by the steering group, were entered into a three-round Delphi survey. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and patients or relatives of patients who had experienced TTTS were invited to participate. Consensus was defined a priori using the 15%/70% definition of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. The modified nominal group technique was used to evaluate the consensus outcomes in a face-to-face consultation meeting and identify the final COS.Results: One hundred and three participants, from 29 countries, participated in the three-round Delphi survey. Of those, 88 completed all three rounds. Twenty-two consensus outcomes were identified through the Delphi procedure and entered into the modified nominal group technique. The consensus meeting was attended by 11 healthcare professionals, two researchers and three patients; 12 core outcomes were prioritized for inclusion in the COS. Fetal core outcomes included live birth, pregnancy loss (including miscarriage, stillbirth, termination of pregnancy and neonatal mortality), subsequent death of a cotwin following single-twin demise at the time of treatment, recurrence of TTTS, twin anemia-polycythemia sequence and amniotic band syndrome. Neonatal core outcomes included gestational age at delivery, birth weight, brain injury syndromes and ischemic limb injury. Maternal core outcomes included maternal mortality and admission to Level-2 or -3 care setting. One aspirational outcome, neurodevelopment at 18-24 months of age, was also prioritized.Conclusions: Implementing the COS for TTTS within future research studies could make a substantial contribution to advancing the usefulness of research in TTTS. Standardized definitions and measurement instruments are now required for individual core outcomes. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity and represents a clinical dilemma. Interventions include expectant management with early preterm delivery if there are signs of fetal compromise, selective termination of the compromised twin, fetoscopic laser coagulation of the communicating placental vessels or termination of the whole pregnancy. Previous studies evaluating interventions have reported many different outcomes and outcome measures. Such variation makes comparing, contrasting, and combining results challenging, limiting ongoing research on this uncommon condition to inform clinical practice. We aim to produce, disseminate, and implement a core outcome set for selective fetal growth restriction research in monochorionic twin pregnancies.Methods: An international steering group, including professionals, researchers, and lay experts, has been established to oversee the development of this core outcome set. The methods have been guided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative Handbook. Potential core outcomes will be developed by undertaking a systematic review of studies evaluating interventions for selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies. Potential core outcomes will be entered into a three-round Delphi survey and key stakeholders including clinical professionals, researchers, and lay experts will be invited to participate. Repeated reflection and rescoring of individual outcomes should encourage group and individual stakeholder convergence towards consensus outcomes which will be entered into a modified Nominal Group Technique to finalize the core outcome set. Once core outcomes have been agreed, we will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for each outcome.Discussion: The development, dissemination, and implementation of a core outcome set for selective fetal growth restriction should ensure that future research protocols select, collect, and report outcomes and outcome measures in a standardized manner. Data synthesis will be possible on a broad level and rigorous implementation should advance the quality of research studies and their effective use in order to guide clinical practice, improve patient care, maternal, short-term perinatal outcomes, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.Trial Registration: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) registration number: 998. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42018092697 . 18th April 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing interest for quality measurement in health care services; pre-hospital emergency medical services (EMS) included. However, attempts of measuring the quality of physician-staffed EMS (P-EMS) are scarce. The aim of this study was to develop a set of quality indicators for international P-EMS to allow quality improvement initiatives. Methods: A four-step modified nominal group technique process (expert panel method) was used. Results: The expert panel reached consensus on 26 quality indicators for P-EMS. Fifteen quality indicators measure quality of P-EMS responses (response-specific quality indicators), whereas eleven quality indicators measure quality of P-EMS system structures (system-specific quality indicators). Discussion: When measuring quality, the six quality dimensions defined by The Institute of Medicine should be appraised. We argue that this multidimensional approach to quality measurement seems particularly reasonable for services with a highly heterogenic patient population and complex operational contexts, like P-EMS. The quality indicators in this study were developed to represent a broad and comprehensive approach to quality measurement of P-EMS. Conclusions: The expert panel successfully developed a set of quality indicators for international P-EMS. The quality indicators should be prospectively tested for feasibility, validity and reliability in clinical datasets. The quality indicators should then allow for adjusted quality measurement across different P-EMS systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The aim of this study was to establish consensus among clinicians in order to produce recommendations to optimise the diagnosis of physical illness in patients with mental illness who present in Emergency Departments (EDs). Method A list of recommendations was derived from qualitative interviews conducted with 39 doctors and nurses working in EDs in four general hospitals in England. Using a modified nominal group technique, we then asked a selected group of 15 doctors and nurses to take part in a group discussion with two voting rounds in order to decide which recommendations are most beneficial and feasible. Results Five recommendations met the a priori criteria to be considered ‘strongly supported’. These included: having a psychiatric liaison team staff available 24 hours a day in the vicinity of the ED; developing detailed guidelines regarding intoxicated patients and regarding parallel assessment of patients by both ED and psychiatric staff; and having regular meetings between representatives of both departments. Conclusion In addition to suggesting specific recommendations, the study stresses the advantages in increasing the accessibility of psychiatric staff in the ED but also identifies challenges regarding joint work and division of responsibilities between them and the ED acute team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]