ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Methodological quality of antimalarial randomized controlled trials during pregnancy and its impact on the risk of low birth weight.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological quality of antimalarial randomized controlled trials during pregnancy and its impact on the risk of low birth weight.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe biases in antimalarial randomized controlled trials (RCTs) during pregnancy and their influence on antimalarial drug efficacy to reduce the risk of low birth weight (LBW).
methodsRCT characteristics and results were retrieved from a previous systematic review on the efficacy of antimalarials. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment was used to investigate source of biases in each RCT. The quality of RCT reporting published after the introduction of the CONSORT statement in medical literature in 1996 were compared to those published before 1996. A meta-regression analysis was performed to examine the impact of bias on the efficacy of antimalarials to reduce LBW after controlling for the time period prior to 1996.
resultsTwenty out of 25 RCTs (80%) had a high risk of bias. The proportion of RCTs having a low risk of bias was higher in manuscripts published after the introduction of CONSORT compared to those published before 1996 for sequence generation (P = 0.04) and allocation concealment (P = 0.04). Heterogeneity between RCTs was associated with an overestimation of the efficacy of antimalarial drugs in reducing LBW in RCTs with inadequate methods for randomization, allocation concealment or not being free of other bias.
conclusionAntimalarial RCTs during pregnancy are poorly reported but may be improved by using the CONSORT statement. After taking into account the time period before 1996, we found that biases had an impact on the efficacy of antimalarials to reduce the risk of LBW.
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.