BackgroundExcessive haemorrhage at cesarean section requires donor (allogeneic) blood transfusion. Cell salvage may reduce this requirement.Methods and findingsWe conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (at 26 obstetric units; participants recruited from 4 June 2013 to 17 April 2016) of routine cell salvage use (intervention) versus current standard of care without routine salvage use (control) in cesarean section among women at risk of haemorrhage. Randomisation was stratified, using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable models, adjusting for stratification variables and prognostic factors identified a priori, to compare rates of donor blood transfusion (primary outcome) and fetomaternal haemorrhage ≥2 ml in RhD-negative women with RhD-positive babies (a secondary outcome) between groups. Among 3,028 women randomised (2,990 analysed), 95.6% of 1,498 assigned to intervention had cell salvage deployed (50.8% had salvaged blood returned; mean 259.9 ml) versus 3.9% of 1,492 assigned to control. Donor blood transfusion rate was 3.5% in the control group versus 2.5% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01, p = 0.056; adjusted risk difference −1.03, 95% CI −2.13 to 0.06). In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 4.6% in women assigned to control versus 3.0% in the intervention group among emergency cesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 2.2% versus 1.8% among elective cesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The rate of fetomaternal haemorrhage was higher with the intervention (10.5% in the control group versus 25.6% in the intervention group, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14, p = 0.013). We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects.ConclusionsThe overall reduction observed in donor blood transfusion associated with the routine use of cell salvage during cesarean section was not statistically significant.Trial registrationThis trial was prospectively registered on ISRCTN as trial number 66118656 and can be viewed on http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66118656.

Purpose A paper reporting the development of the ICECAP-O was published in 2006. Since then, there has been increasing interest in the use of capability-based measures within health economics and the ICECAP-O has been suggested for use in economic evaluation by decision-making bodies in the Netherlands and UK. Methods A systematic review of studies published between January 2006 and October 2018 which have assessed the psychometric properties of ICECAP-O or utilised the measure within economic evaluation. Results Twenty-four studies explored the psychometric properties of ICECAP-O and 21 have utilised the measure within economic evaluation; one study reported psychometric properties as well as utilising the measure within economic evaluation. The ICECAP-O has good construct validity and responsiveness, but there is evidence of some issues relating to content validity. In the context of economic evaluation, the ICECAP-O has, to date, mainly been included as a secondary economic measure and the reporting of results is brief with minimal detail and often no discussion. Five of the economic evaluation studies combined scores from ICECAP-O with time, but each used different terminology to describe this result. Conclusion Focus, in terms of publications, appears to have shifted now from assessment of psychometric properties to the utilisation of the ICECAP-O within economic evaluation. Further research is needed with respect to a decision-rule for the ICECAP measures. This additional research should also guide users in terms of appropriate analysis, terminology and presentation of results, which are in-keeping with the conceptual framework underpinning the ICECAP-O. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-019-02114-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 10/57/32. The contractual start date was in October 2012. The draft report began editorial review in December 2016 and was accepted for publication in March 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Published by t...

Objectives Carer quality-of-life (QoL) effects are recommended for inclusion in economic evaluations, but little is known about the relative performance of different types of QoL measures with carers. This study evaluated the validity and responsiveness of 3 care-related QoL measures (the Carer Experience Scale [CES], CarerQoL-7D, and ASCOT-Carer), 1 health-related QoL measure (the EQ-5D-5L), and 1 generic QoL measure (the ICECAP-A). Methods Validity and responsiveness were assessed in a UK sample of informal carers of adults with dementia, stroke, mental illness, or rheumatoid arthritis. A questionnaire containing the 5 QoL measures was posted to carers identified through the Family Resources Survey (N = 1004). Hypotheses regarding the anticipated associations between constructs related to the QoL of carers were tested to investigate construct validity and responsiveness. Results Each measure exhibited some level of construct validity. In general, larger effect sizes and stronger associations were detected for the ASCOT-Carer and ICECAP-A measures in the pooled sample and across all conditions. The 5 measures did not exhibit clear responsiveness to changes over a 12-month period in care recipient health status or hours of care provided per week. Conclusion The results of this study provide initial evidence of the validity of care-related, health-related, and generic QoL (capability) measures in informal carers of adults with 4 highly prevalent conditions. Care-related measures were not always more sensitive to constructs associated with QoL of carers compared with generic measures. The performance of the ICECAP-A was comparable with that of the best-performing care-related measure, the ASCOT-Carer.

No abstract