0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Balloon catheters versus vaginal prostaglandins for labour induction (CPI Collaborative): an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and reanalyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are therefore considered a gold standard approach to evidence synthesis. They are likely to be used with increasing frequency as current initiatives to share clinical trial data gain momentum and may be particularly important in reviewing controversial therapeutic areas. To develop PRISMA-IPD as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement, tailored to the specific requirements of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts, including reviews of diagnosis and prognosis. Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop that included researchers, clinicians, methodologists experienced in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD, and journal editors. The statement was drafted and iterative refinements were made by the project, advisory, and development groups. The PRISMA-IPD Development Group reached agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram by consensus. Compared with standard PRISMA, the PRISMA-IPD checklist includes 3 new items that address (1) methods of checking the integrity of the IPD (such as pattern of randomization, data consistency, baseline imbalance, and missing data), (2) reporting any important issues that emerge, and (3) exploring variation (such as whether certain types of individual benefit more from the intervention than others). A further additional item was created by reorganization of standard PRISMA items relating to interpreting results. Wording was modified in 23 items to reflect the IPD approach. PRISMA-IPD provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women

            The perinatal and maternal consequences of induction of labor at 39 weeks among low-risk nulliparous women are uncertain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks' gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

              Robust evidence to direct management of pregnant women with mild hypertensive disease at term is scarce. We investigated whether induction of labour in women with a singleton pregnancy complicated by gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia reduces severe maternal morbidity. We undertook a multicentre, parallel, open-label randomised controlled trial in six academic and 32 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands between October, 2005, and March, 2008. We enrolled patients with a singleton pregnancy at 36-41 weeks' gestation, and who had gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio by block randomisation with a web-based application system to receive either induction of labour or expectant monitoring. Masking of intervention allocation was not possible. The primary outcome was a composite measure of poor maternal outcome--maternal mortality, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, pulmonary oedema, thromboembolic disease, and placental abruption), progression to severe hypertension or proteinuria, and major post-partum haemorrhage (>1000 mL blood loss). Analysis was by intention to treat and treatment effect is presented as relative risk. This study is registered, number ISRCTN08132825. 756 patients were allocated to receive induction of labour (n=377 patients) or expectant monitoring (n=379). 397 patients refused randomisation but authorised use of their medical records. Of women who were randomised, 117 (31%) allocated to induction of labour developed poor maternal outcome compared with 166 (44%) allocated to expectant monitoring (relative risk 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.86, p<0.0001). No cases of maternal or neonatal death or eclampsia were recorded. Induction of labour is associated with improved maternal outcome and should be advised for women with mild hypertensive disease beyond 37 weeks' gestation. ZonMw.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                The Lancet
                The Lancet
                Elsevier BV
                01406736
                November 2022
                November 2022
                : 400
                : 10364
                : 1681-1692
                Article
                10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01845-1
                36366885
                8cb8e003-85e7-4ff4-bc03-af68ac624d83
                © 2022

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article