SynthesisPloS one2013
Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Feto-Maternal Outcome of Preeclampsia with Severe Features and Eclampsia in Abakaliki, South-East Nigeria.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- Racial/ethnic differences in pregnancy-related hypertensive disease in nulliparous women.Ethnicity & disease · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNulliparity is a major risk factor of preeclampsia investigated in numerous trials of its prevention.
objectiveWe aimed to assess whether these trials considered nulliparity in subject selection or analysis of results. SEARCH STRATEGY: 01 April 2013 search of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. 01 April 2013 search of trials registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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. MAIN
results88 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.
conclusionParity is largely ignored in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention, which raises difficulties in interpreting the results.
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.