Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11687082›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Interventions for treating cholestasis in pregnancy.

R F Burrows, O Clavisi, E Burrows

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Interventions for treating cholestasis in pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2003
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

R F BurrowsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168. robert.burrows@med.monash.edu.au
O Clavisi
E Burrows
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCholestasis of pregnancy has been linked to adverse maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes. As the pathophysiology is unresolved, therapies have been empiric.

objectivesThe objective of the review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in women with a clinical diagnosis of cholestasis of pregnancy (CIP) SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Current Contents. Date of last search: March 2001. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention to either a placebo or alternative treatment in women with a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Trials published only as abstracts were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers assessed identified trials for 1) eligibility and 2) methodological quality. Attempts were made to contact authors for missing data. MAIN

resultsNine RCTs involving 227 women were included but adequate data for appropriate comparisons in pruritus, bile acids or liver enzymes were not consistently reported. S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) versus placebo (four trials, 82 women): only one trial showed significantly greater improvements in pruritus, bile salts and liver enzymes with SAMe. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) versus placebo (three trials, 56 women): in two trials a significant difference in pruritus relief was not detected. One trial observed greater reductions in bile salts and liver enzymes with UDCA. Preterm births were fewer with UDCA in one study while two studies reported no difference in fetal distress incidence. Guar gum versus placebo (one trial, 48 patients): no differences in pruritus, bile salts, or fetal/neonatal outcomes were observed. Activated charcoal versus no treatment (one trial, 20 patients): the reduction in bile salts was greater with charcoal, but no difference in pruritus relief: relative risk (RR) 9.0 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 - 148 or fetal/neonatal outcomes. UDCA versus SAMe (two trials, 36 patients): pruritus relief was better with UDCA in one study and with SAMe in the other. UDCA was better in reducing bile acids but not liver enzymes in one trial. UDCA + SAMe versus placebo, UDCA or SAMe (one study, eight patients/arm): UDCA + SAMe versus placebo or UDCA resulted in greater improvements in pruritus, bile salts and selected liver function assays; UDCA + SAMe versus SAMe resulted in greater improvements in bile salts and ALP only. No treatments were found to be unsafe. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend guar gum, activated charcoal, SAMe and UDCA alone or in combination in treating women with CIP. Inconsistent and inadequate reporting of results precluded pooling the results of small studies.

Indexed as

CharcoalCholestasisFemaleGalactansHumansMannansPlant GumsPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicS-AdenosylmethionineUrsodeoxycholic AcidCharcoalGalactansguar gumMannansPlant GumsS-AdenosylmethionineUrsodeoxycholic Acid

Identifiers

PMID11687082
OpenAlexW2762969714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.