Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35840927›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Tocolysis with nifedipine versus atosiban and perinatal outcome: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

Tijn M S van Winden, Tobias A J Nijman, C Emily Kleinrouweler, Raed Salim, Maryam Kashanian, Wafa R Al-Omari, Eva Pajkrt, Ben W Mol, Martijn A Oudijk, Carolien Roos

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Tijn M S van WindenDepartment of Obstetrics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tobias A J NijmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medisch Centrum Haaglanden, The Hague, Netherlands.
C Emily KleinrouwelerDepartment of Obstetrics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Raed SalimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel.
Maryam KashanianDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Akbarabadi Teaching Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
Wafa R Al-OmariDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical City Teaching Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq.
Eva PajkrtDepartment of Obstetrics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Martijn A OudijkAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.a.oudijk@amsterdamumc.nl.
Carolien RoosAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLBaghdad Medical City · IQEmek Medical Center · ILMedisch Centrum Haaglanden · NLMonash University · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1176437ZonMw 843002826
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorldwide, nifedipine and atosiban are the two most commonly used tocolytic agents for the treatment of threatened preterm birth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nifedipine and atosiban in an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA).

methodsWe investigated the occurrence of adverse neonatal outcomes in women with threatened preterm birth by performing an IPDMA, and sought to identify possible subgroups in which one treatment may be preferred. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for trials comparing nifedipine and atosiban for treatment of threatened preterm birth between 24

resultsWe detected four studies (N = 791 women), of which two provided individual participant data (N = 650 women). The composite neonatal outcome occurred in 58/364 (16%) after nifedipine versus 69/359 (19%) after atosiban (OR 0.76, 95%CI 0.47-1.23). Perinatal death occurred in 14/392 (3.6%) after nifedipine versus 7/380 (1.8%) after atosiban (OR 2.0, 95%CI 0.80-5.1). Nifedipine results in longer prolongation of pregnancy, with a 18 days to delivery compared with 10 days for atosiban (HR 0.83 (96% CI 0.69-0.99)). NICU admission occurred less often after nifedipine (46%) than after atosiban (59%), (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.14-0.75). The sensitivity analysis revealed no difference in prolongation of pregnancy for 48 hours (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.73-1.4) or 7 days (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.85-5.8) between nifedipine and atosiban. There was a non-significant higher neonatal mortality in the nifedipine-exposed group (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60-3.4).

conclusionsIn this IPDMA, we found no differences in composite outcome between nifedipine and atosiban in the treatment of threatened preterm birth. However, the non-significant higher mortality after administering nifedipine warrants further investigation of the use of nifedipine as a tocolytic drug. STUDY REGISTRATION: We conducted this study according to a prospectively prepared protocol, registered with PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under CRD42016024244.

Indexed as

Perinatal DeathPremature BirthTocolytic AgentsFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornNifedipinePregnancySystematic Reviews as TopicTocolysisVasotocinatosibanNifedipineTocolytic AgentsVasotocinIndividual participant data meta-analysisObstetric labor, prematurePPROMPreterm birthPreterm laborPreterm Prelabor rupture of fetal membranesTocolysis

Identifiers

PMID35840927
PMCPMC9284745
OpenAlexW4285591067

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.