Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17054277›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Progesterone for preventing pre-eclampsia and its complications.

S Meher, L Duley

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guided imagery for treating hypertension in pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Evidence for hypoxia-induced dysregulated cholesterol homeostasis in preeclampsia: Insights into the mechanisms from human placental cells and tissues.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Prevention of preeclampsia.Journal of pregnancy · 2012
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S MeherThe University of Liverpool, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK. s.meher@liv.ac.uk
L Duley
Queen's Medical Centre · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G116/98
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the past, progesterone has been advocated for prevention of pre-eclampsia and its complications. Although progestogens are not used for this purpose in current clinical practice, it remains relevant to assess the evidence on their possible benefits and harms.

objectivesTo assess the effects of progesterone during pregnancy on the risk of developing pre-eclampsia and its complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2), and EMBASE (1974 to August 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials evaluating progesterone or any other progestogen during pregnancy for prevention of pre-eclampsia and its complications were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. MAIN

resultsTwo trials of uncertain quality were included (296 women). These trials compared progesterone injections with no progesterone. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate any clear differences between the two groups on the risk of pre-eclampsia (one trial, 128 women; relative risk (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 1.77), death of the baby (two trials, 296 women; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.51), preterm birth (one trial, 168 women; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.66), small-for-gestational-age babies (one trial, 168 women; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.57) or major congenital defects (one trial, 168 women; RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.28 to 9.62). There were no reported cases of masculinisation of female babies (one trial, 128 women). Long-term follow up for the children has been reported in one trial, but the data are excluded from the review as 54% were lost to follow up at one year and 80% at 16 years. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence for reliable conclusions about the effects of progesterone for preventing pre-eclampsia and its complications. Therefore, progesterone should not be used for this purpose in clinical practice at present. Unless new and plausible hypotheses emerge for the role of progesterone in development of pre-eclampsia, further trials of progesterone are unlikely to be a priority.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansObstetric Labor, PrematurePre-EclampsiaPregnancyProgesteroneProgesterone

Identifiers

PMID17054277
PMCPMC8915954
OpenAlexW1544774183

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.