Testing the applicability and additional value of a consultation round after the consensus meeting in the development of two core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVES: Test applicability and additional value of a consultation round after the consensus meeting in the development of core outcome sets (COSs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In two COS procedures (Core Outcome Set for the prevention and treatment of fetal GROwth restriction: deVeloping Endpoints (COSGROVE) and Definition and Core Outcomes on Hyperemesis Gravida (DCOHG)) that followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials methodology, the first round of convergence to consensus among stakeholder groups in an online Delphi procedure was followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting during which a COS was formulated. We subsequently presented the COS to the online panel in a consultation round to confirm that the online panel agreed with the choices made at the consensus meeting, defined as 80% agreement. PARTICIPANTS: In the COSGROVE Study, there were eight stakeholder groups, and 83 out of 107 participants completed the consultation round. In the DCOHG Study, there were four stakeholder groups, and 96 out of 125 completed the consultation round. INTERVENTIONS: Adding a consultation round after completing a modified Delphi method with a consensus meeting. RESULTS: There was a level of agreement of 81% and 84%, respectively, in the consultation round of both procedures. This was above the preset level of agreement. The consultation round yielded additional suggestions to refine COS formulation in one of the studies. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that in two procedures, the online expert panel agreed with the participants of the consensus meeting in these procedures, lending validity to existing COS methodology. Future studies could evaluate whether bringing back the COS for confirmation after the consensus meeting could potentially increase the uptake of the final COS.

Consensus Definition of Fetal Growth Restriction in Intrauterine Fetal Death: A Delphi Procedure.

CONTEXT.­: Fetal growth restriction is a risk factor for intrauterine fetal death. Currently, definitions of fetal growth restriction in stillborns are heterogeneous. OBJECTIVES.­: To develop a consensus definition for fetal growth restriction retrospectively diagnosed at fetal autopsy in intrauterine fetal death. DESIGN.­: A modified online Delphi survey in an international panel of experts in perinatal pathology, with feedback at group level and exclusion of nonresponders. The survey scoped all possible variables with an open question. Variables suggested by 2 or more experts were scored on a 5-point Likert scale. In subsequent rounds, inclusion of variables and thresholds were determined with a 70% level of agreement. In the final rounds, participants selected the consensus algorithm. RESULTS.­: Fifty-two experts participated in the first round; 88% (46 of 52) completed all rounds. The consensus definition included antenatal clinical diagnosis of fetal growth restriction OR a birth weight lower than third percentile OR at least 5 of 10 contributory variables (risk factors in the clinical antenatal history: birth weight lower than 10th percentile, body weight at time of autopsy lower than 10th percentile, brain weight lower than 10th percentile, foot length lower than 10th percentile, liver weight lower than 10th percentile, placental weight lower than 10th percentile, brain weight to liver weight ratio higher than 4, placental weight to birth weight ratio higher than 90th percentile, histologic or gross features of placental insufficiency/malperfusion). There was no consensus on some aspects, including how to correct for interval between fetal death and delivery. CONCLUSIONS.­: A consensus-based definition of fetal growth restriction in fetal death was determined with utility to improve management and outcomes of subsequent pregnancies.

Building consensus and standards in fetal growth restriction studies.

Fetal growth restriction is a pathologic condition in which the fetus fails to reach its biologically based growth potential. There is inconsistency in terminology, definition, monitoring, and management, both in clinical practice and in the existing literature. This hampers interpretation and comparison of cohorts and studies. Standardization is essential. With the lack of a golden standard, or the opportunity to come to empirical evidence, consensus procedures can help to establish standardization. Consensus procedures provide no new information but formulate an agreement (as second best in the absence of robust evidence) for clinical and/or research practice on the basis of existing data. Consensus agreements need to be updated when new evidence becomes available and can change over time. In this chapter, we address the different issues that lack uniformity in FGR studies and management. Furthermore, we discuss several consensus methods and recent consensus procedures regarding fetal growth restriction.