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:	Medicine R Science 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

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

Ejemplares similares