Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26517123›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

The Effects of Intravenous Immunoglobulins in Women with Recurrent Miscarriages: A Systematic Review of Randomised Trials with Meta-Analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses Including Individual Patient Data.

Pia Egerup, Jane Lindschou, Christian Gluud, Ole Bjarne Christiansen, ImmuReM IPD Study Group

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pia EgerupThe Fertility Department, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jane LindschouThe Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian GluudThe Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ole Bjarne ChristiansenThe Fertility Department, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
ImmuReM IPD Study Group
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKRigshospitalet · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunological disturbances are hypothesised to play a role in recurrent miscarriage (RM) and therefore intravenous immunoglubulins (IVIg) have been tested in RM patients.

objectivesThe objectives were to investigate the benefits and harms of IVIg versus placebo, no intervention, or treatment as usual in women with RM. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the published literature in all relevant databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials investigating IVIg versus placebo, no intervention, or treatment as usual in women with RM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We undertook meta-analyses of aggregated data and individual patient data using a two-step approach, and we conducted bias domain assessments and trial sequential analyses to assess the risks of systematic and random errors. MAIN

resultsWe identified 11 randomised clinical trials. No significant difference in the frequency of no live birth was found when IVIg was compared with placebo or treatment as usual (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75-1.12, p = 0.42). Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size of 1,008 participants was not obtained. IVIg compared with placebo seems to increase the risk of adverse events. Subgroup analysis suggests that women with RM after a birth (secondary RM) seemed most likely to obtain a potential beneficial effect of IVIg (RR for no live birth 0.77, 95%CI 0.58-1.02, p = 0.06), however, trial sequential analysis showed that insufficient information is presently accrued.

conclusionWe cannot recommend or refute IVIg in women with RM. IVIg should therefore be assessed in further randomised clinical trials with positive outcomes before any clinical use is considered.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualFemaleHumansImmunoglobulins, IntravenousImmunologic FactorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeImmunoglobulins, IntravenousImmunologic Factors

Identifiers

PMID26517123
PMCPMC4627734
OpenAlexW1939569932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.