Abstracts Ursodeoxycholic acid improves feto-placental and offspring metabolic outcomes in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and in a mouse model of hypercholanaemic pregnancy Abstracts 740The correlation between epigenetic change and neonatal plasma glucose level in maternal gestational diabetes offspring

ObjectivesPatient decision aids can be used to support pregnant women engaging in shared decisions, but little is known about their effects in obstetrics. The authors aimed to evaluate the effects of patient decision aids designed for pregnant women on clinical and psychosocial outcomes.DesignSystematic review. Data on all outcomes were extracted and summarised. All studies were critically appraised for potential sources of bias and, when possible to obtain, the reported decision aids were evaluated. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of outcomes in primary studies and the small number of studies.Data sourcesElectronic searches were performed using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Medion databases from inception until December 2010. Reference lists of all included articles were also examined and key experts contacted.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligibility criteria included randomised controlled trials, which reported on patient decision aids for women facing any treatment decision in pregnancy published in English. Studies evaluating health education material that did not address women's values and preferences were excluded.ResultsPatient decision aids have been developed for decisions about prenatal testing, vaginal birth after Caesarean section, external cephalic version and labour analgesia. Use of decision aids is associated with a number of positive effects including reduced anxiety, lower decisional conflict, improved knowledge, improved satisfaction and increased perception of having made an informed choice.ConclusionsPatient decision aids have the potential to improve obstetric care. However, currently the evidence base is limited by the small number of studies, the quality of the studies and because they involved heterogeneous decision aids, patient groups and outcomes.

Objective: To examine the ability of three different proteinuria assessment methods (urinary dipstick, spot urine protein:creatinine ratio [Pr/Cr], and 24-hour urine collection) to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes Methods:We performed a prospective multicentre cohort study, PIERS (Preeclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk), in seven academic tertiary maternity centres practising expectant management of preeclampsia remote from term in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia Eligible women were those admitted with preeclampsia who had at least one antenatal proteinuria assessment by urinary dipstick, spot urine Pr/Cr ratio, and/or 24-hour urine collection Proteinuria assessment was done either visually at the bedside (by dipstick) or by hospital clinical laboratories for spot urine Pr/Cr and 24-hour urine collection We calculated receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (95% CI) for each proteinuria method and each of the combined adverse maternal outcomes (within 48 hours) or adverse perinatal outcomes (at any time) Models with AUC ≥ 070 were considered of interest Analyses were run for all women who had each type of proteinuria assessment and for a cohort of women ("ALL measures") who had all three proteinuria assessmentsResults: More women were proteinuric by urinary dipstick (≥ 2+, 614%) than by spot urine Pr/Cr (≥ 30g/mol, 504%) or 24-hour urine collection (≥ 03g/d, 347%) Each proteinuria measure evaluated had some discriminative power, and dipstick proteinuria (categorical) performed as well as other methods No single method was predictive of adverse perinatal outcome Conclusion:The measured amount of proteinuria should not be used in isolation for decision-making in women with preeclampsia Dipstick proteinuria performs as well as other methods of assessing proteinuria for prediction of adverse events

No abstract

Objectives(1) To conduct a scoping review of postgraduate specialty training (ST) curricula for doctors within Health Education England in order to identify common themes and variations in requirements for training and assessment of research competencies. (2) To make recommendations on standardisation of training for clinical research across ST programmes.SettingHealth Education England North East and National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (CRN)—North East and North Cumbria.MethodsAnnual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP); Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) checklists and curricula for ST were obtained from Health Education England North East and reviewed between June and September 2015. Research competence requirements based on knowledge, skills or behaviour-based domains were identified and entered onto a spreadsheet for analysis. Common themes with levels of competence required were identified. This information was used to construct and propose a model for delivery of training in clinical research across ST programmes.ResultsSixty-two ST curricula were reviewed and seven common themes for research training were found in up to 97% of the curricula. Requirement for good clinical practice (GCP) in research training was included in 15% of curricula. One of the common themes involved knowledge-based competency, and three each of the remaining seven involved skills or behaviour-based competencies. There was less clarity and larger variation between specialties in how research competencies were assessed; and what evidence was required for ARCP and CCT to assure competence. 63% (19/30) of curricula from medical specialties had no mention of research requirements within their ARCP guidelines.ConclusionsGiven that the majority of specialty curricula contain consistent themes around core research knowledge, consideration should be given to standardising the delivery and assessment of generic research competencies within ST. Our recommendations from this review could form the basis for developing structured research training for specialty trainees involving: (1) a taught course for knowledge-based competencies; (2) clinical placements with CRN teams for practical workplace-based experience and (3) developing research tutors to help support placements and assessment of these competencies.