Exploring the reporting standards of RCTs involving invasive procedures for assisted vaginal birth: A systematic review

• Published in: European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 2021-07, Vol.262, p.166-173
• Main Authors: Hotton, Emily J., Renwick, Sophie, Lenguerrand, Erik, Wade, Julia, Draycott, Tim J., Crofts, Joanna F., Blencowe, Natalie S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Assisted vaginal birth; Complex interventions; Female; Forceps; Humans; Odon Device; Reference Standards; Reporting standards; Review; Ventouse
• ISSN: 0301-2115; 1872-7654; 1872-7654
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.05.026

•Reporting standards of device RCTs are vital, ensuring correct implementation.•Assisted vaginal birth interventions are complex and use devices to achieve birth.•Reporting standards of assisted vaginal birth trials lack detail or clarity.•Clearer reporting standards guidelines must be produced, ensuring transparent findings. Assisted vaginal birth (AVB) is a complex intervention involving medical devices, comprising multiple components. This complexity creates difficulties when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in terms of describing, standardising and monitoring the intervention, and accounting for differing clinician expertise. This review examines the reporting standards of complex interventions involving a medical device, in the context of AVB RCTs. Searches were undertaken from the start of indexing to March 2021, and limited to RCTs, feasibility and pilot studies including at least one device for AVB. RCTs were selected if they included participants having an AVB with any device, with or without a comparator group. Reporting details were assessed according to the Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials extension for non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT), focusing on intervention descriptions, standardization, adherence and clinician expertise. Screening of abstracts, full-text articles and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Of 4098 abstracts and 83 full-text articles, 39 papers were included, investigating 80 interventions. Twenty-seven different named devices were identified. Intervention descriptions were provided in 20 (55%) papers with varying levels of detail and with only one covering the entire procedure. Standardization of interventions was mentioned in 25 papers (64%). Only eight (21%) papers reported any form of adherence to the intended procedure. Some data regarding expertise were reported in 25 (64%) papers. Despite some compliance with reporting standards, there is a lack of detail regarding intervention description, standardization, adherence and expertise in RCTs of AVB. This creates difficulties in understanding how intervention delivery was intended and what actually occurred. Clearer guidelines for the reporting of invasive procedures and devices are required.