Philippa Middleton

Bio: Philippa Middleton is an academic researcher from University of Adelaide. The author has contributed to research in topics: Pregnancy & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 60, co-authored 218 publications receiving 20082 citations. Previous affiliations of Philippa Middleton include Boston Children's Hospital & University of Queensland.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Abstract: Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues

Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes

Abstract: Background Policies for timing of cord clamping vary, with early cord clamping generally carried out in the first 60 seconds after birth, whereas later cord clamping usually involves clamping the umbilical cord greater than one minute after the birth or when cord pulsation has ceased. Objectives To determine the effects of different policies of timing of cord clamping at delivery of the placenta on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2007). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing early and late cord clamping. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data. Main results We included 11 trials of 2989 mothers and their babies. No significant differences between early and late cord clamping were seen for postpartum haemorrhage or severe postpartum haemorrhage in any of the five trials (2236 women) which measured this outcome (relative risk (RR) for postpartum haemorrhage 500 mls or more 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.55). For neonatal outcomes, our review showed both benefits and harms for late cord clamping. Following birth, there was a significant increase in infants needing phototherapy for jaundice (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.92; five trials of 1762 infants) in the late compared with early clamping group. This was accompanied by significant increases in newborn haemoglobin levels in the late cord clamping group compared with early cord clamping (weighted mean difference 2.17 g/dL; 95% CI 0.28 to 4.06; three trials of 671 infants), although this effect did not persist past six months. Infant ferritin levels remained higher in the late clamping group than the early clamping group at six months. Authors' conclusions One definition of active management includes directions to administer an uterotonic with birth of the anterior shoulder of the baby and to clamp the umbilical cord within 30-60 seconds of birth of the baby (which is not always feasible in practice). In this review delaying clamping of the cord for at least two to three minutes seems not to increase the risk of postpartum haemorrhage. In addition, late cord clamping can be advantageous for the infant by improving iron status which may be of clinical value particularly in infants where access to good nutrition is poor, although delaying clamping increases the risk of jaundice requiring phototherapy.

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus

Abstract: Background Epidemiological and basic science evidence suggests that magnesium sulphate before birth may be neuroprotective for the fetus. Objectives To assess the effects of magnesium sulphate as a neuroprotective agent when given to women considered at risk of preterm birth. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2008). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of antenatal magnesium sulphate therapy in women threatening or likely to give birth at less than 37 weeks' gestational age. For one subgroup analysis, studies were broadly categorised by the primary intent of the study into "neuroprotective intent", or "other intent (maternal neuroprotective - pre-eclampsia)", or "other intent (tocolytic)". Data collection and analysis At least two authors assessed trial eligibility and quality, and extracted data. Main results Five trials (6145 babies) were eligible for this review. Antenatal magnesium sulphate therapy given to women at risk of preterm birth substantially reduced the risk of cerebral palsy in their child (relative risk (RR) 0.68; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.87; five trials; 6145 infants). There was also a significant reduction in the rate of substantial gross motor dysfunction (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; four trials; 5980 infants). No statistically significant effect of antenatal magnesium sulphate therapy was detected on paediatric mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17; five trials; 6145 infants), or on other neurological impairments or disabilities in the first few years of life. Overall there were no significant effects of antenatal magnesium therapy on combined rates of mortality with cerebral palsy, although there were significant reductions for the neuroprotective groups RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; four trials; 4446 infants, but not for the other intent subgroups. There were higher rates of minor maternal side effects in the magnesium groups, but no significant effects on major maternal complications. Authors' conclusions The neuroprotective role for antenatal magnesium sulphate therapy given to women at risk of preterm birth for the preterm fetus is now established. The number of women needed to be treated to benefit one baby by avoiding cerebral palsy is 63 (95% confidence interval 43 to 155). Given the beneficial effects of magnesium sulphate on substantial gross motor function in early childhood, outcomes later in childhood should be evaluated to determine the presence or absence of later potentially important neurological effects, particularly on motor or cognitive function.

CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Background Clear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed abstracts of conferences and journal articles related to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract Here, we extend the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement to develop a minimum list of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting the results of a RCT in any journal or conference abstract

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Abstract: Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Abstract: The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Open Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medicine, and Trials.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.