Definitions, terminology, and related concepts of "racial health equity": a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, access to quality healthcare varies greatly across racial and ethnic groups, resulting in significant health disparities. A new term, "racial health equity" (RHE), is increasingly reported in the medical literature, but there is currently no consensus definition of the term. Additionally, related terms such as "health disparities," "health inequities," and "equality" have been inconsistently used when defining RHE. METHODS: The primary purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the current use and underlying concepts used to define racial health equity. The study will address two key questions: (1) "What terminology and definitions have been used to characterize RHE?" and (2) "What knowledge gaps and challenges are present in the current state of RHE research and theory?" The review will collect and analyze data from three sources: (1) websites from key national and international health organizations, (2) theoretical and narrative published articles, and (3) evidence synthesis studies addressing interventions targeting racial health equity and minority stakeholder engagement. DISCUSSION: Defining "racial health equity" and related terminology is the first step to advancing racial health equity within the USA. This review aims to offer an improved understanding of RHE constructs and definitions, bringing greater unity to national racial health equity research efforts across disciplines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/7pvzq .

Systemic corticosteroids for the prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable improvement in outcomes for preterm infants, rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remain high, affecting an estimated 33% of very low birthweight infants, with corresponding long-term respiratory and neurosensory issues. Systemic corticosteroids can address the inflammation underlying BPD, but the optimal regimen for prevention of this disease, balancing of the benefits with the potentially meaningful risks of systemic corticosteroids, continues to be a medical quandary. Numerous studies have shown that systemic corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, effectively treat or prevent BPD. However, concerning short and long-term side effects have been reported and the optimal approach to corticosteroid treatment remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether differences in efficacy and safety exist between high-dose dexamethasone, moderate-dose dexamethasone, low-dose dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and placebo in the prevention of BPD, death, the composite outcome of death or BPD, and other relevant morbidities, in preterm infants through a network meta-analysis, generating both pairwise comparisons between all treatments and rankings of the treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library for all systematic reviews of systemic corticosteroids for the prevention of BPD and searched for completed and ongoing studies in the following databases in January 2023: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation) at risk for BPD that evaluated systemic corticosteroids (high-dose [≥ 4 mg/kg cumulative dose] dexamethasone, moderate-dose [≥ 2 to < 4 mg/kg] dexamethasone, low-dose [< 2 mg/kg] dexamethasone, or hydrocortisone) versus control or another systemic corticosteroid. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our main information sources were the systematic reviews, with reference to the original manuscript only for data not included in these reviews. Teams of two paired review authors independently performed data extraction, with disagreements resolved by discussion. Data were entered into Review Manager 5 and exported to R software for network meta-analysis (NMA). NMA was performed using a frequentist model with random-effects. Two separate networks were constructed, one for early (< seven days) initiation of treatment and one for late (≥ seven days) treatment initiation, to reflect the different patient populations evaluated. We assessed the certainty of evidence derived from the NMA for our primary outcomes using principles of the GRADE framework modified for application to NMA. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies, involving 6441 infants, in our analyses. Only six of the included studies provided direct comparisons between any of the treatment (dexamethasone or hydrocortisone) groups, forcing network comparisons between treatments to rely heavily on indirect evidence through comparisons with placebo/no treatment groups. Thirty-one studies evaluated early corticosteroid treatment, 27 evaluated late corticosteroid treatment, and one study evaluated both early and late corticosteroid treatments. Early treatment (prior to seven days after birth): Benefits:NMA for early treatment showed only moderate-dose dexamethasone to decrease the risk of BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) compared with control (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80; moderate-certainty evidence), although the other dexamethasone dosing regimens may have similar effects compared with control (high-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence; low-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence). Other early treatment regimens may have little or no effect on the risk of death at 36 weeks' PMA. Only moderate-dose dexamethasone decreased the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA compared with control (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; moderate-certainty evidence). HARMS: Low-dose dexamethasone increased the risk for cerebral palsy (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.28; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with control. Hydrocortisone may decrease the risk of major neurosensory disability versus low-dose dexamethasone (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence). Late treatment (at seven days or later after birth): Benefits: NMA for late treatment showed high-dose dexamethasone to decrease the risk of BPD both versus hydrocortisone (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence) and versus control (RR 0.72, CI 0.59 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). The late treatment regimens evaluated may have little or no effect on the risk of death at 36 weeks' PMA. High-dose dexamethasone decreased risk for the composite outcome of death or BPD compared with all other treatments (control, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.80, high-certainty evidence; hydrocortisone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84, low-certainty evidence; low-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88, low-certainty evidence; moderate-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93, low-certainty evidence). HARMS: No effect was observed for the outcomes of major neurosensory disability or cerebral palsy. The evidence for the primary outcomes was of overall low certainty, with notable deductions for imprecision and heterogeneity across the networks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While early treatment with moderate-dose dexamethasone or late treatment with high-dose dexamethasone may lead to the best effects for survival without BPD, the certainty of the evidence is low. There is insufficient evidence to guide this therapy with regard to plausible adverse long-term outcomes. Further RCTs with direct comparisons between systemic corticosteroid treatments are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach, and these studies should be adequately powered to evaluate survival without major neurosensory disability.

Use of Composite Outcomes in Neonatal Trials: An Analysis of the Cochrane Reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Composite outcomes are used to increase the power of a study by combining event rates. Many composite outcomes in adult clinical trials have components that differ substantially in patient importance, event rate, and effect size, making interpretation challenging. Little is known about the use of composite outcomes in neonatal randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We assessed the use of composite outcomes in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published till November 2017. Two authors reviewed the components of the composite outcomes to compare their patient importance and computed the ratios of effect sizes and event rates between the components, with an a priori threshold of 1.5, indicating a substantial difference. Descriptive statistics were presented. RESULTS: We extracted 7,766 outcomes in 2,134 RCTs in 312 systematic reviews. Among them, 55 composite outcomes (0.7%) were identified in 46 RCTs. The vast majority (92.7%) of composite outcomes had 2 components, with death being the most common component (included 51 times [92.7%]). The components in nearly three-quarters of the composite outcomes (n = 40 [72.7%]) had different patient importance, while the effect sizes and event rates differed substantially between the components in 27 (49.1%) and 35 (63.6%) outcomes, respectively, with up to 43-fold difference in the event rates observed. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of composite outcomes in neonatal RCTs had different patient importance with contrasting effect sizes and event rates between the components. In patient communication, clinicians should highlight individual components, rather than the composites, with explanation on the relationship between the components, to avoid misleading impression on the effect of the intervention. Future trials should report the estimates of all individual components alongside the composite outcomes presented.

Umbilical Cord Management for Newborns <34 Weeks' Gestation: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation prioritized scientific review of umbilical cord management strategies at preterm birth. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of umbilical cord management strategies (including timing of cord clamping and cord milking) in preterm infants <34 weeks' gestation. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registries were searched through July 2019 for randomized controlled trials assessing timing of cord clamping and/or cord milking. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, appraised risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty (GRADE). DATA EXTRACTION: We identified 42 randomized controlled trials (including 5772 infants) investigating 4 different comparisons of cord management interventions. RESULTS: Compared to early cord clamping, delayed cord clamping (DCC) and intact-cord milking (ICM) may slightly improve survival; however, both are compatible with no effect (DCC: risk ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.04, n = 2988 infants, moderate certainty evidence; ICM: risk ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.98 to 1.06, n = 945 infants, moderate certainty evidence). DCC and ICM both probably improve hematologic measures but may not affect major neonatal morbidities. LIMITATIONS: For many of the included comparisons and outcomes, certainty of evidence was low. Our subgroup analyses were limited by few researchers reporting subgroup data. CONCLUSIONS: DCC appears to be associated with some benefit for infants born <34 weeks. Cord milking needs further evidence to determine potential benefits or harms. The ideal cord management strategy for preterm infants is still unknown, but early clamping may be harmful.

Umbilical Cord Management at Term and Late Preterm Birth: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation prioritized scientific review of umbilical cord management at term and late preterm birth. OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of umbilical cord management strategies (clamping timing and cord milking) in infants ≥34 weeks' gestational age. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and trial registries searched July 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently assessed eligibility of randomized controlled trials. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed evidence certainty (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations). RESULTS: We identified 46 studies (9159 women and their infants) investigating 7 comparisons. Compared with early cord clamping (ECC) <30 seconds, delayed cord clamping (DCC) ≥30 seconds (33 studies), intact-cord milking (1 study), and cut-cord milking (2 studies) probably improve hematologic measures but may not affect survival without neurodisability, anemia in early infancy, or maternal postpartum hemorrhage. No differences in major neonatal morbidities are seen in studies comparing methods of optimizing placental transfusion (DCC versus cut-cord milking [3 studies], longer delays in clamping [7 studies], or physiologic parameters [3 studies]). Strategies that promote increased placental transfusion may be associated with greater phototherapy use. Evidence for all outcomes was low or very low certainty. LIMITATIONS: Incompleteness and low certainty of findings limit applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ECC, DCC or cord milking increases hemoglobin and hematocrit immediately after birth in infants ≥34 weeks' gestational age. The uncertain effects of DCC and cord milking compared with ECC on major morbidities limit usefulness of available evidence for policy and practice.

The Choice of Population and Outcomes in Neonatal Trials on Hyperbilirubinemia: Are They Relevant? An Analysis of Cochrane Neonatal Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Neonates with jaundice are usually managed according to their serum bilirubin despite an unclear overall correlation between bilirubin levels and patient-important outcomes (PIOs) such as kernicterus spectrum disorder (KSD). OBJECTIVES: We examined data from Cochrane Neonatal reviews to assess whether conditions that constituted KSD were included as key outcomes and how commonly they occurred in the population studied. METHODS: We identified Cochrane reviews, published till November 2017 that evaluated interventions for neonatal jaundice (NNJ). We extracted the following information at the review and study levels: included population, outcomes assessed (in particular, whether PIOs such as KSD were listed as the primary outcomes), as well as their cumulative incidence in the reviews. RESULTS: Out of 311 reviews, 11 evaluated interventions for NNJ with 78 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included. Among the reviews, a total number of 148 outcomes were predefined and 30 (20.3%) were PIOs related to KSD, with 11 (36.7%) listed as primary outcomes. Among the 78 included RCTs (total participants = 8,232), 38 (48.7%) enrolled predominantly high-risk and 40 (51.3%) enrolled predominantly low-risk population. A total number of 431 outcomes were reported, and 40 (9.2%) were PIOs related to KSD (of which 37 were from studies with high-risk infants), with 13 (32.5%) listed as primary outcome. Cumulatively, no infant developed KSD across all studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is suboptimal representation of PIOs such as KSD in neonatal trials and Cochrane reviews on NNJ. Over half of the trials included populations with very low risk of KSD, which does not represent judicious use of resources. Amidst our continued search for a more reliable surrogate marker for NNJ, studies should evaluate the whole spectrum KSD alongside serum bilirubin in high-risk populations with sufficiently significant event rates, as this will make the trial methodologically feasible, with findings that will impact the population concerned.

The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Cochrane Neonatal was first established in 1993, as one of the original review groups of the Cochrane Collaboration. In fact, the origins of Cochrane Neonatal precede the establishment of the collaboration. In the 1980's, the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at Oxford, led by Dr. Iain Chalmers, established the "Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials" (ODPT), a register of virtually all randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine to provide a resource for reviews of the safety and efficacy of interventions used in perinatal care and to foster cooperative and coordinated research efforts in the perinatal field [1]. An effort that was clearly ahead of its time, ODPT comprised four main elements: a register of published reports of trials; a register of unpublished trials; a register of ongoing and planned trials; and data derived from pooled overviews (meta-analyses) of trials. This core effort grew into the creation of the seminal books, "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" as well as "Effective Care of the Newborn Infant" [2,3]. As these efforts in perinatal medicine grew, Iain Chalmers thought well beyond perinatal medicine into the creation of a worldwide collaboration that became Cochrane [4]. The mission of the Cochrane Collaboration is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence (www.cochrane.org). Cochrane Neonatal has continued to be one of the most productive review groups, publishing between 25 tpo to 40 new or updated systematic reviews each year. The impact factor has been steadily increasing over four years and now rivals most of the elite journals in pediatric medicine. Cochrane Neonatal has been a worldwide effort. Currently, there are 404 reviews involving 1206 authors from 52 countries. What has Cochrane done for babies? Reviews from Cochrane Neonatal have informed guidelines and recommendations worldwide. From January 2018 through June 2020, 77 international guidelines cited 221 Cochrane Neonatal reviews. These recommendations have included recommendations of the use of postnatal steroids, inhaled nitric oxide, feeding guidelines for preterm infants and other core aspects of neonatal practice. In addition, Cochrane Reviews has been the impetus for important research, including the large-scale trial of prophylactic indomethacin therapy, a variety of trials of postnatal steroids, trials of emollient ointment and probiotic trials [6]. While justifiably proud of these accomplishments, one needs to examine the future contribution of Cochrane Neonatal to the neonatal community. The future of Cochrane Neonatal is inexorably linked to the future of neonatal research. Obviously, there is no synthesis of trials data if, as a community, we fail to provide the core substrate for that research. As we look at the current trials' environment, fewer randomized controlled trial related to neonates are being published in recent years. A simple search of PubMed, limiting the search to "neonates" and "randomized controlled trials" shows that in the year 2000, 321 randomized controlled trials were published. These peaked five years ago, in 2015, with close to 900 trials being published. However, in 2018, only 791 studies are identified. Does this decrease represent a meaningful change in the neonatal research environment? Quite possibly. There are shifting missions of clinical neonatology at academic medical institutions, at least in the United States, with a focus on business aspects as well as other important competing clinical activities. Quality improvement has taken over as one of the major activities at both private and academic neonatal practices. Clearly, this is a needed improvement. All units at levels need to be dedicated to improving the outcomes of the sick and fragile population we care for. However, this need not be at the expense of formal clinical trials. It is understandable that this approach would be taken. Newer interventions frequently relate to complex systems of care and not the simple single interventions. Even trials that might traditionally have been done as randomized controlled trials, such as the introduction of a new mode of ventilation, are in reality complex challenges to the ability of institutions to create systems to adapt to these new technologies. Cost of doing trials has always been a barrier. The challenging regulatory and ethical environment contributes to these problems as well [7]. Despite these barriers, how does the research agenda of the neonatal community move forward in the 21st Century? We need to reassess how we create and disseminate our research findings. Innovative trial designs will allow us to address complex issues that we may not have tackled with conventional trials. Adaptive designs may allow us to look at potentially life-saving therapies in a way that feel more efficient and more ethical [8]. Clarifying issues such as the use of inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants would be greatly served if we even knew whether or not there are hypoxemic preterm infant who would benefit from this therapy [9]. Current trials do not suggest so, yet current practice tells us that a significant number of these babies will receive inhaled nitric oxide [10-13]. Adaptive design, such as those done with trials of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), would allow us to quickly assess whether, in fact, these therapies are life-saving and allow us to consider whether or not further trials are needed [14,15]. Our understanding that many interventions involve entire systems approaches does not relegate us only to doing quality improvement work. Cluster designs may allow us to test more complex interventions that have usually been under the purview of quality improvement [16-18]. Cluster trials are well suited for such investigations and can be done with the least interruption to ongoing care. Ultimately, quality improvement is the application of the best evidence available (evidence-based medicine is "what to do" and evidence-based practice is "how to do"). [19,20]. Nascent efforts, such as the statement on "embedding necessary research into culture and health" (the ENRICH statement) call for the conduct of large, efficient pragmatic trials to evaluate neonatal outcomes, as in part called for in the ALPHA Collaboration [21,22]. This statement envisions an international system to identify important research questions by consulting regularly with all stakeholders, including patients, public health professionals, researchers, providers, policy makers, regulators, funders of industry. The ENRICH statement envisions a pathway to enable individuals, educational institutions, hospitals and health-care facilities to confirm their status as research-friendly by integrating an understanding of trials, other research and critical thinking and to teaching learning and culture, as well as an engagement with funders, professional organizations and regulatory bodies and other stake holders to raise awareness of the value of efficient international research to reduce barriers to large international pragmatic trials and other collaborative studies. In the future, if trials are to be done on this scale or trials are prospectively designed to be analyzed together, core outcome measures must be identified and standardized. That clinical trials supply estimates of outcomes that are relevant to patients and their families is critical. In addition, current neonatal research evaluates many different outcomes using multiple measures. A given measure can have multiple widely used definitions. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (or chronic lung disease just to add to the confusion) quickly comes to mind [23,24]. The use of multiple definitions when attempting to measure the same outcome prevents synthesis of trial results and meta-analysis and hinders efforts to refine our estimates of effects. Towards that end, Webbe and colleagues have set out to develop a core outcome set for neonatal research [25]. Key stakeholders in the neonatal community reviewed multiple outcomes reported in neonatal trials and qualitative studies. Based on consensus, key outcome measures were identified, including survival, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, brain injury on imaging, retinopathy or prematurity, gross motor ability, general cognitive ability, quality of life, adverse events, visual impairment or blindness, hearing impairment or deafness, chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Trials registration has to be a continued focus of the neonatal community. Trials registration allows for systematic reviewers to understand whether or not reporting bias has occurred [26]. It also allows for transparent incorporation of these core outcome measures. Ultimately, trials registration should include public reporting of all of these core outcomes and, in the future, access to data on an individual level such that more sophisticated individual patient data meta-analysis could occur. Lastly, there is no reason to see clinical trials and quality improvement as separate or exclusive activities. In fact, in the first NICQ Collaborative, conducted by Vermont Oxford Network, participation in a trial of postnatal steroids was considered part of the quality improvement best practices as opposed to simply choosing an as-of-yet unproven approach to use of this potent drug [27]. What role will Cochrane Neonatal play as we move forward in the 21st Century? As the neonatal community moves forward with its' research agenda, Cochrane Neonatal must not only follow but also lead with innovative approaches to synthesizing research findings. Cochrane Neonatal must continue to work closely with guideline developers. The relationship between systematic review production and guideline development is clearly outlined inreports from the Institute of Medicine [28,29]. Both are essential to guideline development; the systematic review group culling the evidence for the benefits and harms of a given intervention and the guideline group addressing the contextual issues of cost, feasibility, implementation and the values and preferences of individuals and societies. Most national and international guidelines groups now routinely use systematic reviews as the evidence basis for their guidelines and recommendations. Examples of the partnership between Cochrane Neonatal and international guideline development can be seen in our support of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on the use of vitamin A or the soon to be published recommendations from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) on cord management in preterm and term infants [30]. In the future, we need to collaborate early in the guideline development process so that the reviews are fit for purpose and meet the needs of the guideline developers and the end users. Towards this end, all Cochrane Neonatal reviews now contain GRADE assessments of the key clinical findings reported in the systematic review [31]. Addition of these assessments addresses the critical issue of our confidence in the findings. We are most confident in evidence provided by randomized controlled trials but this assessment can be can be downgraded if the studies that reported on the outcome in question had a high risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency of results, or imprecision, or where there is evidence of reporting bias. Information provided by GRADE assessments is seen as critical in the process of moving from the evidence to formal recommendations [32]. We need to explore complex reviews, such as network (NMA) or multiple treatment comparison (MCT) meta-analyses, to address issues not formally addressed in clinical trials [33]. In conditions where there are multiple effective interventions, it is rare for all possible interventions to have been tested against each other [34]. A solution could be provided by network meta-analysis, which allows for comparing all treatments with each other, even if randomized controlled trials are not available for some treatment comparisons [34]. Network meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions [35]. However, Mills and colleagues note that the methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex [35]. Cochrane Neonatal must take a role in both the creation of such analyses and the education of the neonatal community regarding the pitfalls of such an approach. The availability of individual patient data will make more sophisticated analyses more available to the community. Although the current crop of individual patient data meta-analyses (including the reviews of elective high frequency ventilation, inhaled nitric oxide and oxygen targets) have not differed substantially from the findings of the trials level reviews (suggesting that, in fact, sick neonates are more alike that unalike), there still will be a large role for individual patient data meta-analysis, at least to end the unfound conclusions that these therapies are effective in various subgroups (be it issues of sex, disease severity, or clinical setting) [36-39]. Future trials should take a lesson from the NeOProM Collaborative [37,39]. Given the difficulty in generating significant sample size and creating funding in any single environment, trials with similar protocols should be conducted in a variety of healthcare settings with an eye towards both study level and individual patient level meta-analysis at the conclusion of those trials, allowing for broader contribution to the trials data, more rapid accrual of sample size, and more precise results. We need to educate the neonatal community regarding the use and abuse of diagnostic tests. Diagnostic tests are a critical component of healthcare but also contribute greatly to the cost of medical care worldwide. These costs include the cost of the tests themselves and the costs of misdiagnosis and treatment of individuals who will not benefit from those treatments. Clinicians may have a limited understanding of diagnostic test accuracy, the ability of a diagnostic test to distinguish between patients with and without the disease or target condition [41,42]. Efforts such as Choosing Wisely have tried to identify these deficiencies [40]. As Cochrane has increased the general literacy of both the medical and general population regarding the interpretation of the results of interventions on various diseases, so should Cochrane move forward and improve the understanding of diagnostic testing. We need to become more efficient at creating and maintaining our reviews. The time spent to produce systematic reviews is far too great. In average, it takes between 2½ to 6½ years to produce a systematic review, requiring intense time input for highly trained and expensive experts. Innovations in the ways in which we produce systematic reviews can make the review process more efficient by outsourcing some of the tasks or crowdsourcing to machine learning. We need to let the crowd and machine learning innovations help us sort the massive amounts of information needed to conduct systematic reviews. It can also allow for "live" updating of critical reviews where the research landscape is quickly changing [43]. Lastly, Cochrane Neonatal must focus more on users of the reviews and not necessarily authors of the reviews. Current Cochrane programming speaks of Cochrane training with an eye towards developing the skills of individuals who will conduct systematic reviews. While this is clearly needed and laudable, the fact of the matter is that most of the community will be "users" of the reviews. Individuals who need to understand how to use and interpret the findings of systematic reviews. These review users include clinicians, guideline developers, policy makers and families. Incorporation of GRADE guidelines has been a huge step in adding transparency to the level of uncertainty we have in our findings. From a family's perspective, we need to overcome the environment of mistrust or misunderstanding of scientific evidence and how we convey what we know, and our uncertainty about what we know, to parents and families.

How Often Are Patient-Important Outcomes Represented in Neonatal Randomized Controlled Trials? An Analysis of Cochrane Neonatal Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Research findings based on patient-important outcomes (PIOs) provide more useful conclusions than those that are based on surrogate outcomes. It is unclear to what extent PIOs are represented in neonatal randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews. METHODS: We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management. RESULTS: Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year). CONCLUSIONS: The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.

Are Neonatal Trials Better Conducted and Reported over the Last 6 Decades? An Analysis on Their Risk-of-Bias Status in Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of Neonatology as a subspecialty in 1960 has stimulated an enormous amount of neonatal research. A large proportion of neonatal randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) have been included in the Cochrane reviews, within which methodological quality or risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment is an integral feature. OBJECTIVES: We described the ROB profile of neonatal RCTs published since the 1950s. METHODS: We analyzed individual studies within the Cochrane Neonatal reviews published up to December 2016. We extracted the reviewers' judgments on the ROB domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We evaluated blinding of personnel in trials in which blinding was considered feasible. RESULTS: We assessed 1980 RCTs published between 1952 and 2016 from 294 Cochrane Neonatal systematic reviews, with full ROB assessments performed in 848 trials (42.8%). Among the ROB domains, the highest proportion of trials (73%) were judged as satisfactory ("low risk") in handling incomplete outcome data, while fewest trials achieved blinding of outcome assessor (38.4%). In the last 6 decades, a progressive increase has been observed in the proportion of trials that were rated as low risk in random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting. However, blinding was achieved in less than half of the trials with no clear improvement across decades (23-44% since the 1980s). CONCLUSIONS: Despite steady improvement in the overall quality of neonatal RCTs over the last 6 decades, blinding remained unsatisfactory in the majority of the trials.

Profile of Published Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Child Health From Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

OBJECTIVE: Setting priorities in health research is a challenge at the global and national levels. Use of evidence-based approach is uncommon and needs to be promoted in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC). We describe profile of Cochrane systematic reviews focussing on participation from LMIC. METHODS: We searched six Cochrane review groups producing reviews relevant to child health in low- and middle-income countries for published Cochrane systematic reviews from 1 March, 2009 till 18 March, 2015 in the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: A total of 669 Cochrane systematic reviews from six review groups were found. Low proportion of lead authors from low- and middle-income countries was found in 4 out of 6 review groups. About 50% of the reviews showed inconclusive evidence. 101/669 (15%) empty reviews were found needing more primary studies. CONCLUSION: The proportion of Cochrane authors from low- and middle-income countries is low. Capacity-building in systematic reviews and good quality primary research in these countries is warranted.

Prophylactic vitamin K for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding in preterm neonates.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K is necessary for the synthesis of coagulation factors. Term infants, especially those who are exclusively breast fed, are deficient in vitamin K and consequently may have vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). Preterm infants are potentially at greater risk for VKDB because of delayed feeding and subsequent delay in the colonization of their gastrointestinal system with vitamin K producing microflora, as well as immature hepatic and hemostatic function.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of vitamin K prophylaxis in the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 5 December 2016), Embase (1980 to 5 December 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 5 December 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any preparation of vitamin K given to preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We evaluated potential studies and extracted data in accordance with the recommendations of Cochrane Neonatal. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible studies that compared vitamin K to no treatment.One study compared intravenous (IV) to intramuscular (IM) administration of vitamin K and compared various dosages of vitamin K. Three different prophylactic regimes of vitamin K (0.5 mg IM, 0.2 mg vitamin K1, or 0.2 mg IV) were given to infants less than 32 weeks' gestation. Given that only one small study met the inclusion criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes evaluated as low.Intramuscular versus intravenousThere was no statistically significant difference in vitamin K levels in the 0.2 mg IV group when compared to the infants that received either 0.2 or 0.5 mg vitamin K IM (control) on day 5. By day 25, vitamin K1 levels had declined in all of the groups, but infants who received 0.5 mg vitamin K IM had higher levels of vitamin K1 than either the 0.2 mg IV group or the 0.2 mg IM group.Vitamin K1 2,3-epoxide (vitamin K1O) levels in the infants that received 0.2 mg IV were not statistically different from those in the control group on day 5 or 25 of the study. All of the infants had normal or supraphysiologic levels of vitamin K1 concentrations and either no detectable or insignificant amounts of prothrombin induced by vitamin K absence-II (PIVKA II).Dosage comparisonsDay 5 vitamin K1 levels and vitamin K1O levels were significantly lower in the 0.2 mg IM group when compared to the 0.5 mg IM group. On day 25, vitamin K1O levels and vitamin K1 levels in the 0.2 mg IM group and the 0.5 mg IM group were not significantly different. Presence of PIVKA II proteins in the 0.2 mg IM group versus the 0.5 mg IM group was not significantly different at day 5 or 25 of the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Preterm infants have low levels of vitamin K and develop detectable PIVKA proteins during the first week of life. Despite being at risk for VKDB, there are no studies comparing vitamin K versus non-treatment and few studies that address potential dosing strategies for effective treatment. Dosage studies suggest that we are currently giving doses of vitamin K to preterm infants that lead to supraphysiologic levels. Because of current uncertainty, clinicians will have to extrapolate data from term infants to preterm infants. Since there is no available evidence that vitamin K is harmful or ineffective and since vitamin K is an inexpensive drug, it seems prudent to follow the recommendations of expert bodies and give vitamin K to preterm infants. However, further research on appropriate dose and route of administration is warranted.

Completeness of main outcomes across randomized trials in entire discipline: survey of chronic lung disease outcomes in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVE: To map the availability of information on a major clinical outcome--chronic lung disease--across the randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews of an entire specialty, specifically interventions in preterm infants. DESIGN: Survey of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION AND METHODS: All Cochrane systematic reviews (as of November 2013) that had evaluated interventions in preterm infants. We identified how many of those systematic reviews had looked for information on chronic lung disease, how many reported on chronic lung disease, and how many of the randomized controlled trials included in the systematic reviews reported on chronic lung disease. We also randomly selected 10 systematic reviews that did not report on chronic lung disease and 10 that reported on any such outcomes and identified whether any information on chronic lung disease appeared in the primary reports of the randomized controlled trials but not in the systematic reviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether availability of chronic lung disease outcomes differed by type of population and intervention and whether additional non-extracted data might have been available in trial reports. RESULTS: 174 systematic reviews with 1041 trials exclusively concerned preterm infants. Of those, 105 reviews looked for chronic lung disease outcomes, and 79 reported on these outcomes. Of the 1041 included trials, 202 reported on chronic lung disease at 28 days and 200 at 36 weeks postmenstrual; 320 reported on chronic lung disease with any definition. The proportion of systematic reviews that looked for or reported on chronic lung disease and the proportion of trials that reported on chronic lung disease was larger in preterm infants with respiratory distress or support than others (P<0.001) and differed across interventions (P<0.001). Even for trials on children with ventilation interventions, only 56% (48/86) reported on chronic lung disease. In the random sample, 45 of 84 trials (54%) had no outcomes on chronic lung disease in the systematic reviews, and only 9/45 (20%) had such information in the primary trial reports. CONCLUSIONS: Most trials included in systematic reviews of interventions on preterm infants are missing information on one of the most common serious outcomes in this population. Use of standardized clinical outcomes that would have to be collected and reported by default in all trials in a given specialty should be considered.