SynthesisTrials2011
The methodology for developing a prospective meta-analysis in the family planning community.
Synthesis in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Effect of Prophylactic Misoprostol Prior to Intrauterine Device Insertion
A Randomized Control Trial of Misoprostol vs. Placebo Prior to IUD Insertion in Nulliparous Women
A Randomized Control Trial of Misoprostol vs. Placebo for Cervical Preparation in IUD Insertion for Nulliparous Women
A Randomized Control Trial of Misoprostol Versus Placebo for Cervical Priming in Intrauterine Device Insertion for Nulliparous Women
A Randomized Control Trial of Misoprostol Versus Placebo for Cervical Priming in IUD Insertion for Nulliparous Women
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Galantamine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Exon skipping for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Understanding different types of review articles: A primer for early career researchers.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Role of factor VIII, IX, and XI in venous thrombosis recurrence risk in adults and children: A systematic review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Continuously updated network meta-analysis and statistical monitoring for timely decision-making.Statistical methods in medical research · 2018Article
- The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.The Milbank quarterly · 2016Article
- Analysis of combined data from heterogeneous study designs: an applied example from the patient navigation research program.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProspective meta-analysis (PMA) is a collaborative research design in which individual sites perform randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pool the data for meta-analysis. Members of the PMA collaboration agree upon specific research interventions and outcome measures, ideally before initiation but at least prior to any individual trial publishing results. This allows for uniform reporting of primary and secondary outcomes. With this approach, heterogeneity among trials contributing data for the final meta-analysis is minimized while each site maintains the freedom to design a specific trial. This paper describes the process of creating a PMA collaboration to evaluate the impact of misoprostol on ease of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in nulliparous women.
methodsAfter the principal investigator developed a preliminary PMA protocol, he identified potential collaborating investigators at other sites. One site already had a trial underway and another site was in the planning stages of a trial meeting PMA requirements. Investigators at six sites joined the PMA collaborative. Each site committed to enroll subjects to meet a pre-determined total sample size. A final common research plan and site responsibilities were developed and agreed upon through email and face-to-face meetings. Each site committed to contribute individual patient data to the PMA collaboration, and these data will be analyzed and prepared as a multi-site publication. Individual sites retain the ability to analyze and publish their site's independent findings.
resultsAll six sites have obtained Institutional Review Board approval and each has obtained individual funding to meet the needs of that site's study. Sites have shared resources including study protocols and consents to decrease costs and improve study flow. This PMA protocol is registered with the Cochrane Collaboration and data will be analyzed according to Cochrane standards for meta-analysis.
conclusionsPMA is a novel research method that improves meta-analysis by including several study sites, establishing uniform reporting of specific outcomes, and yet allowing some independence on the part of individual sites with respect to the conduct of research. The inclusion of several sites increases statistical power to address important clinical questions. Compared to multi-center trials, PMA methodology encourages collaboration, aids in the development of new investigators, decreases study costs, and decreases time to publication.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00613366, NCT00886834, NCT01001897, NCT01147497 and NCT01307111.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.