Development of a Core Outcome Set and Minimum Reporting Set for intervention studies in growth restriction in the NEwbOrN (COSNEON): study protocol for a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Growth restriction in the newborn (GRN) can predispose to severe complications including hypoglycemia, sepsis, and necrotizing enterocolitis. Different interventions and treatments, such as feeding strategies, for GRN have specific benefits and risks. Comparing results from studies investigating intervention studies in GRN is challenging due to the use of different baseline and study characteristics and differences in reported study outcomes. In order to be able to compare study results and to allow pooling of data, uniform reporting of study characteristics (minimum reporting set [MRS]) and outcomes (core outcome set [COS]) are needed. We aim to develop both an MRS and a COS for interventional and treatment studies in GRN. METHODS/DESIGN: The MRS and COS will be developed according to Delphi methodology. First, a scoping literature search will be performed to identify study characteristics and outcomes in research focused on interventions/treatments in the GRN. An international group of stakeholders, including experts (clinicians working with GRN, and researchers who focus on GRN) and lay experts ([future] parents of babies with GRN), will be questioned to rate the importance of the study characteristics and outcomes in three rounds. After three rounds there will be two consensus meetings: a face-to-face meeting and an electronic meeting. During the consensus meetings multiple representatives of stakeholder groups will reach agreement upon which study characteristics and outcomes will be included into the COS and MRS. The second electronic consensus meeting will be used to test if an electronic meeting is as effective as a face-to-face meeting. DISCUSSION: In our opinion a COS alone is not sufficient to compare and aggregate trial data. Hence, to ensure optimum comparison we also will develop an MRS. Interventions in GRN infants are often complicated by coexisting preterm birth. A COS already has been developed for preterm birth. The majority of GRN infants are born at term, however, and we therefore chose to develop a separate COS for interventions in GRN, which can be combined (with expected overlap) in intervention studies enrolling preterm GRN babies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study is registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness ( COMET ) database. Registered on 30 June 2017

Are short (blue) wavelengths necessary for light treatment of seasonal affective disorder?

<p>Despite widely published speculation regarding a potential potency advantage of short-wavelength (blue-appearing) light for Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) treatment, there have been few systematic studies. Those comparing short-wavelength to broad-wavelength (white) light under actual clinical conditions suggest equivalent effectiveness. This multicenter, parallel-group design trial was undertaken to compare the effects of light therapy on SAD using blue (~465 nm) <i>versus</i> blue-free (595–612 nm) LED lights. Fifty-six medication-free subjects aged 21–64 years who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for recurrent major depression with winter-type seasonal pattern were enrolled in this blinded study at five participating centers between January and March 2012. Thirty-five subjects met the criteria for randomization to 30 min of either blue (~465 nm) <i>or</i> blue-free (595–612 nm) daily morning light therapy. Twenty-nine subjects completed the study; three subjects withdrew due to treatment-related adverse events, including migraines, and three withdrew for non-study-related reasons. The primary effectiveness variable was depression score (SIGH-ADS) after six weeks of daily light treatment. Secondary effectiveness variables included quality-of-life (QoL) and suicidality ratings. Using an intent-to-treat analysis, mean depression scores were different at baseline for the blue group (29 ± 5 versus 26 ± 5, <i>p</i> = 0.05 blue versus blue-free, respectively), and the initial score was used as a covariate. Baseline scores were not significantly different between treatment groups among those who completed the study, and no significant differences in depression scores were observed after 6 weeks (mean ± SD scores at 6 weeks: 5.6 ± 6.1 versus 4.5 ± 5.3, <i>p</i> = 0.74, blue versus blue-free, respectively). In addition, the proportion of subjects who met remission criteria, defined as a depression score ≤8, was not significantly different between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.41); among the 29 subjects who completed the study, 76% of subjects experienced remission by the end of the trial, which coincided with the beginning of spring. The QoL and suicidality ratings were also significantly improved from pre- to post-treatment, with no significant difference between treatments. No subject experienced worsening or non-improved symptoms over the 6-week trial. The main finding of this study is that subjects treated with blue light did not improve more than subjects treated with blue-free light; both showed substantial improvement on multiple measures. Failure to find differences may have resulted from methodological constraints, including a small sample size. Recruitment began mid-winter during an unusually mild season, and the trial was terminated earlier than planned by the study sponsor due to a failure to detect a difference. However, if confirmed in a larger randomized sample, these results suggest that blue wavelengths are not necessary for successful SAD treatment.</p