Top 10 priorities for future ectopic pregnancy research: an international consensus development study.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health. Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.

Diagnosis and Management of Ectopic Pregnancy: Green-top Guideline No. 21.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

Ectopic pregnancy and outcomes of future intrauterine pregnancy

To identify research priorities related to the diagnosis, treatment and management of lipoedema. This was a research question priority-setting that ensured the involvement of patients, relatives and healthcare professionals in all parts. It consisted of the following steps: identifying research questions through an open survey, seeking input from patients, patient relatives and healthcare professionals. Prioritisation, including a Delphi exercise and a final priority-setting meeting. Swedish healthcare and community. A total of 255 participants submitted research questions. 130 participated in the prioritisation of the submitted questions. Of these, 89 were patients, 10 were relatives, 19 were healthcare professionals and 12 were representatives of patient organisations. 1314 potential research questions were submitted; 62 unique questions remained after analysis. 130 and 123 people answered the first and second Delphi surveys, respectively. 20 questions were discussed by 13 participants at the final priority-setting meeting. The following five research questions were selected as a top priority: (1) what criteria should apply for a diagnosis of lipoedema? (2) What outcomes are important in lipoedema research? (3) What effect does manual treatment, such as manual lymphatic drainage have on lipoedema? (4) What effect does liposuction have on lipoedema? (5) What are the effects of hormonal treatment on lipoedema? We found a consensus between patients and healthcare professionals on topics that warrant priority in future research into lipoedema. The questions reflect both the diagnosis of the condition and research on treatment effects. We hope the results will inform researchers and research funders, and direct future studies towards important research questions.

Background: Healthy eating behavior throughout pregnancy and postpartum is important. This study aimed to investigate the perceived sex-specific importance of determinants of changes in eating behavior during pregnancy and postpartum. Methods: Fifty-four determinants were rated by first-time parents (n = 179) on their impact. Experts (n = 31) rated the determinants in terms of their modifiability, relationship strength, and population-level effect from which a “priority for research”-score was calculated. Results: During pregnancy, the three highest rated determinants by women were “health concerns”, “physiological changes”, and “fatigue”. Men perceived “health concerns”, “health consciousness”, and “influence of the pregnant partner” as important. Postpartum, the three highest rated determinants by women were “adaptation to rhythm of baby”, “baby becomes priority”, and “practical constraints because of the baby”. Men perceived “adaptation to rhythm of baby”, “fatigue”. and “(lack of) anticipation” as important. According to the experts, “professional influence”, “food knowledge”, and “home food availability” received high priority scores for both sexes and during both periods. Conclusions: Priority for research and interventions should go towards tailored family-based approaches focusing on food education in a broad sense taking into account aspects such as health consciousness, self-efficacy skills, and the social and home food environment while being supported by healthcare professionals.

Background: In order to identify research priorities for aortic disease, a partnership between the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland (VSGBI) and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) was established to capture the interests of a wide group of patients, carers and health professionals. One of the aims of the partnership was to establish the top 10 research priorities in the field of aortic disease. Methods: A modified JLA Priority Setting Partnership was undertaken, during which healthcare professionals, patients and carers participated independently in two Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland (VSGBI)-led Delphi processes identifying research priorities in aortic disease. An aortic Special Interest Group composed of patients and healthcare professionals assessed the two lists of priorities, amalgamating similar priorities and generating a final list for ranking. An offer was sent to various patients, carers and healthcare professionals from different backgrounds with an interest in aortic disease to attend the final consensus workshop where a ranked top 10 list of aortic disease research priorities was produced using a nominal group technique. Results: A total of 1,231 research priorities relating to general vascular surgery were submitted by 481 clinicians. From these, 162 aortic-specific research priorities were identified and combined into 15 final clinical priorities. In addition, 582 research priorities related to vascular surgery in general were submitted by 373 patients or carers. From these, 24 further aortic-specific research priorities were identified after combining similar priorities. Amalgamation of the clinician and patient priorities resulted in 18 priorities that were taken to the final consensus workshop, where a ranked top 10 list of aortic disease research priorities was produced. These priorities include themes of diagnosis, surveillance, management, recovery and predisposition. Conclusion: A collaborative effort between healthcare professionals and patients has identified a ranked top 10 list of aortic disease research priorities. This list will inform and guide clinicians, researchers and funders for the foreseeable future and will support future research that encompasses the important interests and representation of the wider network involved and affected by aortic disease.

A core outcome set for future research in ectopic pregnancy: an international consensus development study

ObjectivePhysical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers...

The evidence base that underlies the management of children and young people with paediatric rheumatic diseases is deficient. In this field, there are many crucial unanswered questions. The UK Paediatric Rheumatology Clinical Studies Group, supported by UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network: children and Versus Arthritis, elicited ideas for research priorities from paediatric rheumatologists, trainees, allied health-care professionals, nurse specialists, patients, parents of patients, carers, and charities. These ideas were collected through online surveys and face-to-face meetings. A modified Delphi process was used, which included online research priority ranking surveys and a consensus workshop. A longlist of 55 disease-specific research priorities and 37 general research priorities were voted on in the first survey. A list of 11 top general research priorities was produced. The top ten disease-specific research priorities were discussed in depth at a Delphi workshop to determine their final ranking. This Health Policy paper will help to guide clinicians, academics, and funding bodies to prioritise research in paediatric rheumatic diseases, specifically in areas of unmet patient needs.

Limb reconstruction surgery (LRS) has a wide range of clinical applications within orthopaedic and trauma surgery. We sought a consensus view from limb reconstruction healthcare practitioners across the United Kingdom to help guide research priorities within LRS. Our aim is to guide future clinical research in LRS, and assist healthcare practitioners, clinical academics, and funding bodies in identifying key research priorities to improve patient care. A modified Delphi approach was used; it involved an initial scoping survey and a 2-round Delphi process to identify the consensus research priorities in both adult and paediatric LRS. Participants were asked to rank approved submitted questions according to perceived importance on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented lowest importance and 5 indicated highest importance. Mean scores were calculated to identify a consensus of the top ten research priorities for adult and paediatric LRS. One hundred and fifteen participants primarily from across the United Kingdom working in LRS contributed to the modified Delphi process. Participants ranked and then re-ranked the presented research topics in terms of perceived importance. This led to the identification of a top ten research priorities in both adult and paediatric LRS, respectively, based on the collective responses of LRS practitioners. The highest-ranked questions in both adult and paediatric practice related to how to best assess and record patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in LRS patients. Other priorities included the effectiveness of specialist physiotherapy, the use of patient-focused psychological support, and the use of various operative management strategies for infection and limb length discrepancies. We present a consensus-driven research priority study that outlines the key research topics and themes determined by healthcare professionals within LRS in the United Kingdom. These questions will assist funding bodies in prioritising where research funding may be best utilised and help drive future improvement in patient care. British Limb Reconstruction Society Research Collaborative. Identifying Research Priorities in Limb Reconstruction Surgery in the United Kingdom. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2024;19(1):1-8.

Management pearls for interstitial ectopic pregnancies: Experience from 3 large case series

AimsTo undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to establish priorities for future research in diabetes and pregnancy, according to women with experience of pregnancy, and planning pregnancy, with any type of diabetes, their support networks and healthcare professionals.MethodsThe PSP used established James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology working with women and their support networks and healthcare professionals UK‐wide. Unanswered questions about the time before, during or after pregnancy with any type of diabetes were identified using an online survey and broad‐level literature search. A second survey identified a shortlist of questions for final prioritisation at an online consensus development workshop.ResultsThere were 466 responses (32% healthcare professionals) to the initial survey, with 1161 questions, which were aggregated into 60 unanswered questions. There were 614 responses (20% healthcare professionals) to the second survey and 18 questions shortlisted for ranking at the workshop. The top 10 questions were: diabetes technology, the best test for diabetes during pregnancy, diet and lifestyle interventions for diabetes management during pregnancy, emotional and well‐being needs of women with diabetes pre‐ to post‐pregnancy, safe full‐term birth, post‐natal care and support needs of women, diagnosis and management late in pregnancy, prevention of other types of diabetes in women with gestational diabetes, women's labour and birth experiences and choices and improving planning pregnancy.ConclusionsThese research priorities provide guidance for research funders and researchers to target research in diabetes and pregnancy that will achieve greatest value and impact.

STUDY QUESTIONCan consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting?SUMMARY ANSWERConsensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYDifferent definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONPotential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSHealthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEForty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONWe used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSA minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals 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. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. 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. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. 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 of 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 work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERCore Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.