Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.

<h4>Background</h4>Nulliparity is a major risk factor of preeclampsia investigated in numerous trials of its prevention.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to assess whether these trials considered nulliparity in subject selection or analysis of results.<h4>Search strategy</h...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Emmanuel Simon, Agnès Caille, Franck Perrotin, Bruno Giraudeau
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/58a8b397707a4bbeb32bf050b19ac351
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:58a8b397707a4bbeb32bf050b19ac351
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:58a8b397707a4bbeb32bf050b19ac3512021-11-18T07:40:27ZMixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0066677https://doaj.org/article/58a8b397707a4bbeb32bf050b19ac3512013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23826112/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Nulliparity is a major risk factor of preeclampsia investigated in numerous trials of its prevention.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to assess whether these trials considered nulliparity in subject selection or analysis of results.<h4>Search strategy</h4>01 April 2013 search of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. 01 April 2013 search of trials registered in Clinicaltrials.gov.<h4>Selection criteria</h4>Randomised controlled trials and metaanalyses of preeclampsia prevention with no restriction to period of publication or language. Metaanalyses were selected to fully identify relevant trials.<h4>Data collection and analysis</h4>One reader appraised each selected article/registered protocol using a pretested, standardized data abstraction form developed in a pilot test. For each article, he recorded whether both nulliparous and multiparous were included and, in case of mixed populations, whether randomisation was stratified, and whether subgroup analyses had been reported. For registered protocols, he only assessed whether it was planned to include mixed populations.<h4>Main results</h4>88 randomised controlled trials were identified, representing 83,396 included women. In 58 of the 88 articles identified (65.9%), preeclampsia was the primary outcome. In 31 of these (53.4%), the investigation combined nulliparous and multiparous women; only two reports in 31 (6.5%) stated that randomisation was stratified on parity and only four (12.9%) described a subgroup analysis by parity. Of the 30 registered trials, 20 (66.6%) planned to include both nulliparous and multiparous women.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Parity is largely ignored in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention, which raises difficulties in interpreting the results.Emmanuel SimonAgnès CailleFranck PerrotinBruno GiraudeauPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 6, p e66677 (2013)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Medicine
R
Science
Q
spellingShingle Medicine
R
Science
Q
Emmanuel Simon
Agnès Caille
Franck Perrotin
Bruno Giraudeau
Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.
description <h4>Background</h4>Nulliparity is a major risk factor of preeclampsia investigated in numerous trials of its prevention.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to assess whether these trials considered nulliparity in subject selection or analysis of results.<h4>Search strategy</h4>01 April 2013 search of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. 01 April 2013 search of trials registered in Clinicaltrials.gov.<h4>Selection criteria</h4>Randomised controlled trials and metaanalyses of preeclampsia prevention with no restriction to period of publication or language. Metaanalyses were selected to fully identify relevant trials.<h4>Data collection and analysis</h4>One reader appraised each selected article/registered protocol using a pretested, standardized data abstraction form developed in a pilot test. For each article, he recorded whether both nulliparous and multiparous were included and, in case of mixed populations, whether randomisation was stratified, and whether subgroup analyses had been reported. For registered protocols, he only assessed whether it was planned to include mixed populations.<h4>Main results</h4>88 randomised controlled trials were identified, representing 83,396 included women. In 58 of the 88 articles identified (65.9%), preeclampsia was the primary outcome. In 31 of these (53.4%), the investigation combined nulliparous and multiparous women; only two reports in 31 (6.5%) stated that randomisation was stratified on parity and only four (12.9%) described a subgroup analysis by parity. Of the 30 registered trials, 20 (66.6%) planned to include both nulliparous and multiparous women.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Parity is largely ignored in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention, which raises difficulties in interpreting the results.
format article
author Emmanuel Simon
Agnès Caille
Franck Perrotin
Bruno Giraudeau
author_facet Emmanuel Simon
Agnès Caille
Franck Perrotin
Bruno Giraudeau
author_sort Emmanuel Simon
title Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.
title_short Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.
title_full Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.
title_fullStr Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.
title_full_unstemmed Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.
title_sort mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate 2013
url https://doaj.org/article/58a8b397707a4bbeb32bf050b19ac351
work_keys_str_mv AT emmanuelsimon mixingnulliparousandmultiparouswomeninrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofpreeclampsiapreventionisdebatableevidencefromasystematicreview
AT agnescaille mixingnulliparousandmultiparouswomeninrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofpreeclampsiapreventionisdebatableevidencefromasystematicreview
AT franckperrotin mixingnulliparousandmultiparouswomeninrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofpreeclampsiapreventionisdebatableevidencefromasystematicreview
AT brunogiraudeau mixingnulliparousandmultiparouswomeninrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofpreeclampsiapreventionisdebatableevidencefromasystematicreview
_version_ 1718423098015875072