Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27821184›Full record

ArticleTrials2016

A core outcome set for neonatal abstinence syndrome: study protocol for a systematic review, parent interviews and a Delphi survey.

Lauren E Kelly, Lauren M Jansson, Wendy Moulsdale, Jodi Pereira, Sarah Simpson, Astrid Guttman, Karel Allegaert, Lisa Askie, Henry Roukema, Thierry Lacaze and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Core outcomes in neonatology: development of a core outcome set for neonatal research.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome: a review of the science and a look toward the use of buprenorphine for affected infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Lauren E KellyChild Health and Evaluative Sciences, the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. lauren.elyse.kelly@gmail.com.
Lauren M JanssonJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Wendy MoulsdaleNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Aubrey and Marla Dan Program for High Risk Mothers and Babies, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jodi PereiraWomen's and Infant's Program, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sarah SimpsonWomen's and Infant's Program, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Astrid GuttmanDepartment of Pediatrics, the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Karel AllegaertIntensive Care and Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lisa AskieNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Henry RoukemaFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Paediatrics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Thierry LacazeDepartment of Pediatrics, Alberta Health Services and the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jonathan M DavisDepartment of Pediatrics, The Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center and the Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Loretta FinneganCollege on Problems of Drug Dependence, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Paula WilliamsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England.
Martin OffringaChild Health and Evaluative Sciences, the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is increasing globally resulting in an increased incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes and health system costs. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of NAS prevention and management strategies is very weak and further research initiatives are critically needed to support meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. In NAS research, the choice of outcomes and the use of valid, responsive and feasible measurement instruments are crucial. There is currently no consensus and evidence-based core outcome set (COS) for NAS. METHODS/

designThe development of the NAS-COS will include five stages led by an international Multidisciplinary Steering Committee: (1) qualitative interviews with parents/families and a systematic review (SR) to identify items for inclusion in a COS. The SR will also identify participants for the Delphi survey, (2) a three-round Delphi survey to gain expert opinion on the importance of health outcomes influencing NAS management decisions, (3), a consensus meeting to finalize the items and definitions with experts and COS users, (4) feasibility and pilot testing, development of the COS and explanatory document and (5) implementation planning. DISCUSSION: Since standardized outcome measurement and reporting will improve NAS clinical research consistency, efficacy and impact, this COS will reflect the minimum set of health outcomes which should be measured in trials evaluating interventions for preventing or treating NAS.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsDelphi TechniqueHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatal Abstinence SyndromeOutcome Assessment, Health CareSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27821184
PMCPMC5100193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.