1
|
Mol BW, Bordewijk EM, Rogozińska E, Gurrin LC, Thornton JG, van Wely M. Data integrity of 14 randomised controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024; 298:98-103. [PMID: 38735122 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.05.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2024] [Revised: 04/20/2024] [Accepted: 05/09/2024] [Indexed: 05/14/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A review of the literature on iron treatments for iron-deficient anaemia in pregnancy indicated duplication of baseline and outcome tables in two separate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that share only a single author. AIM To assess the integrity of randomised clinical trials from Dr A.M. Darwish, Assiut University, Egypt. DESIGN Assessment of Research Integrity. METHODS We tabulated the characteristics of studies, compared baseline and outcome tables between articles and looked for implausible findings. We used the distribution of baseline p-values to assess whether the summary statistics of baseline characteristics were consistent with properly conducted randomisation. RESULTS We identified 14 RCTs (1,405 participants) published between October 2004 and September 2019. Two pairs of studies showed considerable similarities in baseline characteristics, while another pair of studies was plagiarized. The analysis of baseline p-values indicated a low probability that all the studies featured randomised treatment allocation. CONCLUSION Our analysis of the RCTs of Dr Darwish suggests possible integrity problems. We recommend a critical investigation of the studies that have not been retracted. Until that has been completed, these studies should not be used to inform clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ben W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
| | - Esmee M Bordewijk
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia; Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- Meta-Analysis Group, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, England, United Kingdom
| | - Lyle C Gurrin
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Jim G Thornton
- Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Madelon van Wely
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Al Wattar BH, Rogozińska E, Vale C, Fisher D, Petersen I, Nicum S, Bannington D, Talaulikar V, Freemantle N. Effectiveness and safety of menopause treatments: pitfalls of available evidence and future research need. Climacteric 2024; 27:154-158. [PMID: 38275167 DOI: 10.1080/13697137.2023.2297880] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2024]
Abstract
By 2050 more than 1.6 billion women worldwide will be of post-reproductive age, with >75% reporting severe menopausal symptoms. The last few years saw a gradual uplift in public awareness reaffirming the health needs of women with menopause. Still, effective translation of available evidence on menopause treatments is hindered by several methodological limitations and poor research conduct. We argue that a paradigm shift is required in menopause research to address the remaining knowledge gap and guide safe evidence-based care provision. A critical misconception across studies on menopause is the assumption that women represent a homogeneous group who respond similarly to a particular therapy irrespective of their exposure and individual risk factors. We highlight potential solutions to optimize the quality of future research in menopause including adopting robust trial methodology, standardize outcome reporting to capture quality-of-life measures, and improve lay patient and public involvement in future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B H Al Wattar
- Beginnings Assisted Conception Unit, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals, London, UK
- Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - E Rogozińska
- MRC CTU, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - C Vale
- MRC CTU, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - D Fisher
- MRC CTU, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - I Petersen
- Primary Care & Population Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - S Nicum
- Research Department of Oncology, Cancer Institute, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | | | - V Talaulikar
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, Institute for Women's Health, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - N Freemantle
- Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Godolphin PJ, Marlin N, Cornett C, Fisher DJ, Tierney JF, White IR, Rogozińska E. Use of multiple covariates in assessing treatment-effect modifiers: A methodological review of individual participant data meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 2024; 15:107-116. [PMID: 37771175 DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2023] [Revised: 08/22/2023] [Accepted: 09/18/2023] [Indexed: 09/30/2023]
Abstract
Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally, effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis, specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and 2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model (unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 IPD meta-analyses); (2) Single interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate (3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier (5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches lead to different conclusions. Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects, which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter J Godolphin
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - Nadine Marlin
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Chantelle Cornett
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - David J Fisher
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - Jayne F Tierney
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - Ian R White
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Al Wattar BH, Solangon SA, de Braud LV, Rogozińska E, Jurkovic D. Effectiveness of treatment options for tubal ectopic pregnancy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. BJOG 2024; 131:5-14. [PMID: 37443463 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17594] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2023] [Revised: 06/13/2023] [Accepted: 06/15/2023] [Indexed: 07/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tubal ectopic pregnancy (TEP) is a common gynaecological emergency. Several medical and surgical treatment options exist, but it is not clear which is the safest and most effective treatment. OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness of expectant, medical and surgical treatment options for TEP using a systematic review and network meta-analysis. SEARCH STRATEGY MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception till September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials that evaluated any treatment option for woman with a TEP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses using a random effect model. We assessed the studies' risk of bias, heterogeneity and network inconsistency. We reported primarily on TEP resolution and treatment failure using relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence-intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS We included 31 randomised trials evaluating ten treatments (n = 2938 women). Direct meta-analysis showed no significant benefit for using methotrexate compared to expectant management for TEP resolution. Network meta-analysis showed similar effect-size for most conservative treatment options compared to expectant management for TEP resolution (glucose intra-sac instillation vs. expectant RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63-1.12; methotrexate intra-sac instillation vs. expectant RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10; multi-dose methotrexate vs. expectant RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88-1.15; prostaglandin intra-sac instillation vs. expectant RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53-1.07; salpingotomy vs. expectant RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.16; single dose methotrexate vs. expectant RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85-1.10; single dose methotrexate + mifepristone vs. expectant RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.89-1.33). All treatment options showed a higher risk of failure compared to salpingectomy. CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any medical treatment option for TEP over expectant management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bassel H Al Wattar
- Beginning Assisted Conception Unit, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals, London, UK
- Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sarah A Solangon
- Women's Health Department, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
- EGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK
| | - Lucrezia V de Braud
- Women's Health Department, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
- EGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Davor Jurkovic
- Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, University College London, London, UK
- EGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gray AT, Macpherson L, Carlin F, Sossen B, Richards AS, Kik SV, Houben RMGJ, MacPherson P, Quartagno M, Rogozińska E, Esmail H. Treatment for radiographically active, sputum culture-negative pulmonary tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0293535. [PMID: 37972202 PMCID: PMC10653609 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293535] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2023] [Accepted: 10/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND People with radiographic evidence for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), but negative sputum cultures, have increased risk of developing culture-positive TB. Recent expansion of X-ray screening is leading to increased identification of this group. We set out to synthesise the evidence for treatment to prevent progression to culture-positive disease. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched for prospective trials evaluating the efficacy of TB regimens against placebo, observation, or alternative regimens, for the treatment of adults and children with radiographic evidence of TB but culture-negative respiratory samples. Databases were searched up to 18 Oct 2022. Study quality was assessed using ROB 2·0 and ROBINS-I. The primary outcome was progression to culture-positive TB. Meta-analysis with a random effects model was conducted to estimate pooled efficacy. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021248486). FINDINGS We included 13 trials (32,568 individuals) conducted between 1955 and 2018. Radiographic and bacteriological criteria for inclusion varied. 19·1% to 57·9% of participants with active x-ray changes and no treatment progressed to culture-positive disease. Progression was reduced with any treatment (6 studies, risk ratio [RR] 0·27, 95%CI 0·13-0·56), although multi-drug TB treatment (RR 0·11, 95%CI 0·05-0·23) was significantly more effective than isoniazid treatment (RR 0·63, 95%CI 0·35-1·13) (p = 0·0002). INTERPRETATION Multi-drug regimens were associated with significantly reduced risk of progression to TB disease for individuals with radiographically apparent, but culture-negative TB. However, most studies were old, conducted prior to the HIV epidemic and with outdated regimens. New clinical trials are required to identify the optimal treatment approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam Thorburn Gray
- Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Liana Macpherson
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ffion Carlin
- Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
- Infectious Diseases Unit, Liverpool Royal Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Bianca Sossen
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Alexandra S. Richards
- TB Modelling Group, TB Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sandra V. Kik
- FIND, The Global Alliance for Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Rein M. G. J. Houben
- TB Modelling Group, TB Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Peter MacPherson
- School of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
- Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Matteo Quartagno
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Hanif Esmail
- Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, United Kingdom
- Wellcome Centre for Infectious Diseases Research in Africa, Institute of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Newhouse R, Nelissen E, El-Shakankery KH, Rogozińska E, Bain E, Veiga S, Morrison J. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 7:CD006910. [PMID: 37407274 PMCID: PMC10321312 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006910.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer of ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal origin, referred to collectively as ovarian cancer, is the eighth most common cancer in women and is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are less well and have a limited life expectancy, therefore maintaining quality of life with effective symptom control is an important aim of treatment. However, the unwanted effects of chemotherapy agents may be severe, and optimal treatment regimens are unclear. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), which contains a cytotoxic drug called doxorubicin hydrochloride, is one of several treatment modalities that may be considered for treatment of relapsed EOCs. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review which was published in Issue 7, 2013. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PLD, with or without other anti-cancer drugs, in women with relapsed high grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid) from 1990 to January 2022. We also searched online registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated PLD in women diagnosed with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form and assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. Where possible, we pooled collected data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS This is an update of a previous review with 12 additional studies, so this updated review includes a total of 26 RCTs with 8277 participants that evaluated the effects of PLD alone or in combination with other drugs in recurrent EOC: seven in platinum-sensitive disease (2872 participants); 11 in platinum-resistant disease (3246 participants); and eight that recruited individuals regardless of platinum sensitivity status (2079 participants). The certainty of the evidence was assessed for the three most clinically relevant comparisons out of eight comparisons identified in the included RCTs. Recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC PLD with conventional chemotherapy agent compared to alternative combination chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.04; 5 studies, 2006 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but likely increases progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; 5 studies, 2006 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may slightly improve quality of life at three months post-randomisation, measured using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (mean difference 4.80, 95% CI 0.92 to 8.68; 1 study, 608 participants; low-certainty evidence), but this may not represent a clinically meaningful difference. PLD in combination with another chemotherapy agent compared to alternative combination chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in the rate of overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.30; 2 studies, 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PLD with chemotherapy likely increases anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.85; 5 studies, 1961 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PLD with conventional chemotherapy on hand-foot syndrome (HFS)(grade ≥ 3) (RR 4.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 16.01; 2 studies, 1028 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and neurological events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74; 4 studies, 1900 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Recurrent platinum-resistant EOC PLD alone compared to another conventional chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 6 studies, 1995 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PLD on PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; 4 studies, 1803 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 0.61 to 0.97; 2 studies, 964 participants; very low-certainty evidence), anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 0.19 to 0.82; 5 studies, 1968 participants; very low-certainty evidence), HFS (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 15.19 to 109.15; 6 studies, 2184 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the rate of neurological events (grade ≥ 3)(RR ranged from 0.08 to 3.09; 3 studies, 1222 participants; very low-certainty evidence). PLD with conventional chemotherapy compared to PLD alone likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.21; 1 study, 242 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and it may result in little to no difference in PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22; 2 studies, 353 participants; low-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.09; 1 study, 663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.87; 2 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but likely results in a large reduction in HFS (grade ≥ 3) (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.40; 2 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in neurological events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31; 1 study, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In platinum-sensitive relapsed EOC, including PLD in a combination chemotherapy regimen probably makes little to no difference in OS compared to other combinations, but likely improves PFS. Choice of chemotherapy will therefore be guided by symptoms from previous chemotherapy and other patient considerations. Single-agent PLD remains a useful agent for platinum-resistant relapsed EOC and choice of agent at relapse will depend on patient factors, e.g. degree of bone marrow suppression or neurotoxicity from previous treatments. Adding another agent to PLD likely increases overall grade ≥ 3 adverse events with little to no improvement in survival outcomes. The limited evidence relating to PLD in combination with other agents in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC does not indicate a benefit, but there is some evidence of increased side effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Newhouse
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
| | - Ellen Nelissen
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, The Royal Marsden, London, UK
| | | | | | - Esme Bain
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Susana Veiga
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Jo Morrison
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Marlin N, Godolphin PJ, Hooper RL, Riley RD, Rogozińska E. Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 2: methodological guidance is available. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 159:319-329. [PMID: 37146657 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To review methodological guidance for nonlinear covariate-outcome associations (NL), and linear effect modification and nonlinear effect modification (LEM and NLEM) at the participant level in individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) and their power requirements. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library to identify methodology publications on IPDMA of LEM, NL or NLEM (PROSPERO CRD42019126768). RESULTS Through screening 6,466 records we identified 54 potential articles of which 23 full texts were relevant. Nine further relevant publications were published before or after the literature search and were added. Of these 32 references, 21 articles considered LEM, 6 articles NL or NLEM and 6 articles described sample size calculations. A book described all four. Sample size may be calculated through simulation or closed form. Assessments of LEM or NLEM at the participant level need to be based on within-trial information alone. Nonlinearity (NL or NLEM) can be modeled using polynomials or splines to avoid categorization. CONCLUSION Detailed methodological guidance on IPDMA of effect modification at participant-level is available. However, methodology papers for sample size and nonlinearity are rarer and may not cover all scenarios. On these aspects, further guidance is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Marlin
- Methodology Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK.
| | - Peter J Godolphin
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Richard L Hooper
- Methodology Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Marlin N, Godolphin PJ, Hooper RL, Riley RD, Rogozińska E. Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 1: analysis methods are often substandard. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 159:309-318. [PMID: 37146661 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To review analysis methods used for linear effect modification (LEM), nonlinear covariate-outcome associations (NL) and nonlinear effect modification (NLEM) at the participant-level in individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library to identify IPDMA of randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO CRD42019126768). We investigated if and how IPDMA examined LEM, NL and NLEM, including whether aggregation bias was addressed and if power was considered. RESULTS We screened 6,466 records, randomly sampled 207 and identified 100 IPDMA of LEM, NL or NLEM. Power for LEM was calculated a priori in 3 IPDMA. Of 100 IPDMA, 94 analyzed LEM, 4 NLEM and 8 NL. One-stage models were favoured for all three (56%, 100%, 50%, respectively). Two-stage models were used in 15%, 0% and 25% of IPDMA with unclear descriptions in 30%, 0% and 25%, respectively. Only 12% of one-stage LEM and NLEM IPDMA provided sufficient detail to confirm they had addressed aggregation bias. CONCLUSION Investigation of effect modification at the participant-level is common in IPDMA projects, but methods are often open to bias or lack detailed descriptions. Nonlinearity of continuous covariates and power of IPDMA are rarely assessed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Marlin
- Methodology Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK.
| | - Peter J Godolphin
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Richard L Hooper
- Methodology Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Harrison CL, Bahri Khomami M, Enticott J, Thangaratinam S, Rogozińska E, Teede HJ. Key Components of Antenatal Lifestyle Interventions to Optimize Gestational Weight Gain: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e2318031. [PMID: 37326994 PMCID: PMC10276313 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.18031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2023] [Indexed: 06/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance Randomized clinical trials have found that antenatal lifestyle interventions optimize gestational weight gain (GWG) and pregnancy outcomes. However, key components of successful interventions for implementation have not been systematically identified. Objective To evaluate intervention components using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework to inform implementation of antenatal lifestyle interventions in routine antenatal care. Data Sources Included studies were drawn from a recently published systematic review on the efficacy of antenatal lifestyle interventions for optimizing GWG. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from January 1990 to May 2020. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials examining efficacy of antenatal lifestyle interventions in optimizing GWG were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis Random effects meta-analyses were used to evaluate the association of intervention characteristics with efficacy of antenatal lifestyle interventions in optimizing GWG. The results are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Data extraction was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was mean GWG. Measures included characteristics of antenatal lifestyle interventions comprising domains related to theoretical framework, material, procedure, facilitator (allied health staff, medical staff, or researcher), delivery format (individual or group), mode, location, gestational age at commencement (<20 wk or ≥20 wk), number of sessions (low [1-5 sessions], moderate [6-20 sessions], and high [≥21 sessions]), duration (low [1-12 wk], moderate [13-20 wk], and high [≥21 wk]), tailoring, attrition, and adherence. For all mean differences (MDs), the reference group was the control group (ie, usual care). Results Overall, 99 studies with 34 546 pregnant individuals were included with differential effective intervention components found according to intervention type. Broadly, interventions delivered by an allied health professional were associated with a greater decrease in GWG compared with those delivered by other facilitators (MD, -1.36 kg; 95% CI, -1.71 to -1.02 kg; P < .001). Compared with corresponding subgroups, dietary interventions with an individual delivery format (MD, -3.91 kg; 95% CI -5.82 to -2.01 kg; P = .002) and moderate number of sessions (MD, -4.35 kg; 95% CI -5.80 to -2.89 kg; P < .001) were associated with the greatest decrease in GWG. Physical activity and mixed behavioral interventions had attenuated associations with GWG. These interventions may benefit from an earlier commencement and a longer duration for more effective optimization of GWG. Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that pragmatic research may be needed to test and evaluate effective intervention components to inform implementation of interventions in routine antenatal care for broad public health benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheryce L. Harrison
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Diabetes and Endocrine Unit, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mahnaz Bahri Khomami
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Joanne Enticott
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Global Women’s Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Birmingham Women’s and Children’s National Health Service Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, United Kingdom
| | - Helena J. Teede
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Diabetes and Endocrine Unit, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Hofmeyr GJ, Black RE, Rogozińska E, Heuer A, Walker N, Ashorn P, Ashorn U, Bhandari N, Bhutta ZA, Koivu A, Kumar S, Lawn JE, Munjanja S, Näsänen-Gilmore P, Ramogola-Masire D, Temmerman M. Evidence-based antenatal interventions to reduce the incidence of small vulnerable newborns and their associated poor outcomes. Lancet 2023; 401:1733-1744. [PMID: 37167988 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00355-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2022] [Revised: 01/26/2023] [Accepted: 02/14/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
A package of care for all pregnant women within eight scheduled antenatal care contacts is recommended by WHO. Some interventions for reducing and managing the outcomes for small vulnerable newborns (SVNs) exist within the WHO package and need to be more fully implemented, but additional effective measures are needed. We summarise evidence-based antenatal and intrapartum interventions (up to and including clamping the umbilical cord) to prevent vulnerable births or improve outcomes, informed by systematic reviews. We estimate, using the Lives Saved Tool, that eight proven preventive interventions (multiple micronutrient supplementation, balanced protein and energy supplementation, low-dose aspirin, progesterone provided vaginally, education for smoking cessation, malaria prevention, treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria, and treatment of syphilis), if fully implemented in 81 low-income and middle-income countries, could prevent 5·202 million SVN births (sensitivity bounds 2·398-7·903) and 0·566 million stillbirths (0·208-0·754) per year. These interventions, along with two that can reduce the complications of preterm (<37 weeks' gestation) births (antenatal corticosteroids and delayed cord clamping), could avert 0·476 million neonatal deaths (0·181-0·676) per year. If further research substantiates the preventive effect of three additional interventions (supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, calcium, and zinc) on SVN births, about 8·369 million SVN births (2·398-13·857) and 0·652 million neonatal deaths (0·181-0·917) could be avoided per year. Scaling up the eight proven interventions and two intrapartum interventions would cost about US$1·1 billion in 2030 and the potential interventions would cost an additional $3·0 billion. Implementation of antenatal care recommendations is urgent and should include all interventions that have proven effects on SVN babies, within the context of access to family planning services and addressing social determinants of health. Attaining high effective coverage with these interventions will be necessary to achieve global targets for the reduction of low birthweight births and neonatal mortality, and long-term benefits on growth and human capital.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Justus Hofmeyr
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana; Effective Care Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Walter Sisulu University, East London, South Africa
| | - Robert E Black
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | | | - Austin Heuer
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Neff Walker
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Per Ashorn
- Center for Child, Adolescent, and Maternal Health Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; Department of Paediatrics, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - Ulla Ashorn
- Center for Child, Adolescent, and Maternal Health Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
| | - Nita Bhandari
- Centre for Health Research and Development, Society for Applied Studies, New Delhi, India
| | - Zulfiqar A Bhutta
- Centre of Excellence in Women and Child Health & Institute for Global Health & Development, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan; Centre for Child Global Health, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Annariina Koivu
- Center for Child, Adolescent, and Maternal Health Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
| | | | - Joy E Lawn
- MARCH Center, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Stephen Munjanja
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
| | - Pieta Näsänen-Gilmore
- Center for Child, Adolescent, and Maternal Health Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
| | | | - Marleen Temmerman
- Centre of Excellence in Women and Child Health-East Africa, Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Gaitskell K, Rogozińska E, Platt S, Chen Y, Abd El Aziz M, Tattersall A, Morrison J. Angiogenesis inhibitors for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 4:CD007930. [PMID: 37185961 PMCID: PMC10111509 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007930.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many women, and other females, with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) develop resistance to conventional chemotherapy drugs. Drugs that inhibit angiogenesis (development of new blood vessels), essential for tumour growth, control cancer growth by denying blood supply to tumour nodules. OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness and toxicities of angiogenesis inhibitors for treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). SEARCH METHODS We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (from 1990 to 30 September 2022). We searched clinical trials registers and contacted investigators of completed and ongoing trials for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs comparing angiogenesis inhibitors with standard chemotherapy, other types of anti-cancer treatment, other angiogenesis inhibitors with or without other treatments, or placebo/no treatment in a maintenance setting, in women with EOC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QoL), adverse events (grade 3 and above) and hypertension (grade 2 and above). MAIN RESULTS We identified 50 studies (14,836 participants) for inclusion (including five studies from the previous version of this review): 13 solely in females with newly-diagnosed EOC and 37 in females with recurrent EOC (nine studies in platinum-sensitive EOC; 19 in platinum-resistant EOC; nine with studies with mixed or unclear platinum sensitivity). The main results are presented below. Newly-diagnosed EOC Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.07; 2 studies, 2776 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is very uncertain for PFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05; 2 studies, 2746 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the combination results in a slight reduction in global QoL (mean difference (MD) -6.4, 95% CI -8.86 to -3.94; 1 study, 890 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.26; 1 study, 1485 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 4.27, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.60; 2 studies, 2707 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to block VEGF receptors (VEGF-R), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 2 studies, 1451 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely increase PFS slightly (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00; 2 studies, 2466 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination likely reduces QoL slightly (MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.26; 1 study, 1340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but it increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.55; 1 study, 188 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 3) (RR 6.49, 95% CI 2.02 to 20.87; 1 study, 1352 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent EOC (platinum-sensitive) Moderate-certainty evidence from three studies (with 1564 participants) indicates that bevacizumab with chemotherapy, and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02), but likely improves PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.63) compared to chemotherapy alone. The combination may result in little to no difference in QoL (MD 0.8, 95% CI -2.11 to 3.71; 1 study, 486 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it increases the rate of any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.11, 1.07 to 1.16; 3 studies, 1538 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common in arms with bevacizumab (RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.84 to 8.83; 3 studies, 1538 participants). TKIs with chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 1 study, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence), likely increase PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; 1 study, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on QoL (MD 6.1, 95% CI -0.96 to 13.16; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common with TKIs (RR 3.32, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.10). Recurrent EOC (platinum-resistant) Bevacizumab with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance increases OS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 5 studies, 778 participants; high-certainty evidence) and likely results in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58; 5 studies, 778 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.27; 2 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of bowel fistula/perforation (grade ≥ 2) may be slightly higher with bevacizumab (RR 6.89, 95% CI 0.86 to 55.09; 2 studies, 436 participants). Evidence from eight studies suggest TKIs with chemotherapy likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; 940 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with low-certainty evidence that it may increase PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 940 participants), and may result in little to no meaningful difference in QoL (MD ranged from -0.19 at 6 weeks to -3.40 at 4 months). The combination increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49; 3 studies, 402 participants; high-certainty evidence). The effect on bowel fistula/perforation rates is uncertain (RR 2.74, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.75; 5 studies, 557 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Bevacizumab likely improves both OS and PFS in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC. In platinum-sensitive relapsed disease, bevacizumab and TKIs probably improve PFS, but may or may not improve OS. The results for TKIs in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC are similar. The effects on OS or PFS in newly-diagnosed EOC are less certain, with a decrease in QoL and increase in adverse events. Overall adverse events and QoL data were more variably reported than were PFS data. There appears to be a role for anti-angiogenesis treatment, but given the additional treatment burden and economic costs of maintenance treatments, benefits and risks of anti-angiogenesis treatments should be carefully considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kezia Gaitskell
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Sarah Platt
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St. Michael's Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | - Yifan Chen
- Oxford Medical School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | - Jo Morrison
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Musgrove Park Hospital, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women world-wide. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most common; three-quarters of women present when disease has spread outside the pelvis (stage III or IV). Treatment consists of a combination of surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Although initial responses to chemotherapy are good, most women with advanced disease will relapse. PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi), are a type of anticancer treatment that works by preventing cancer cells from repairing DNA damage, especially in those with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) variants. PARPi offer a different mechanism of anticancer treatment from conventional chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and risks of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). SEARCH METHODS We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central 2020, Issue 10), Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trial Register, MEDLINE (1990 to October 2020), Embase (1990 to October 2020), ongoing trials on www.controlled-trials.com/rct, www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials, the National Research Register (NRR), FDA database and pharmaceutical industry biomedical literature. SELECTION CRITERIA We included trials that randomised women with EOC to PARPi with no treatment, or PARPi versus conventional chemotherapy, or PARPi together with conventional chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently assessed whether studies met the inclusion criteria. We contacted investigators for additional data. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL) and rate of adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We included 15 studies (6109 participants); four (3070 participants) with newly-diagnosed, advanced EOC and 11 (3039 participants) with recurrent EOC. The studies varied in types of comparisons and evaluated PARPi. Eight studies were judged as at low risk of bias in most of the domains. Quality of life data were generally poorly reported. Below we present six key comparisons. The majority of participants had BRCA mutations, either in their tumour (sBRCAmut) and/or germline (gBRCAmut), or homologous recombination deficiencies (HRD) in their tumours. Newly diagnosed EOC Overall, four studies evaluated the effect of PARPi in newly-diagnosed, advanced EOC. Two compared PARPi with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. OS data were not reported. The combination of PARPi with chemotherapy may have little to no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) (two studies, 1564 participants; hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI 0).49 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months' 63% with PARPi versus 69% for placebo). PARPi with chemotherapy likely increases any severe adverse event (SevAE) (grade 3 or higher) slightly (45%) compared with chemotherapy alone (51%) (two studies, 1549 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; high-certainty evidence). PARPi combined with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone likely results in little to no difference in the QoL (one study; 744 participants, MD 1.56 95% CI -0.42 to 3.54; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies compared PARPi monotherapy with placebo as maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in newly diagnosed EOC. PARPi probably results in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 1124 participants; HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.59 to 1.13; moderate-certainty evidence) (alive at 12 months 68% with PARPi versus 62% for placebo). However, PARPi may increase PFS (two studies, 1124 participants; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.92; low-certainty evidence) (no evidence of disease progression at 12 months' 55% with PARPi versus 24% for placebo). There may be an increase in the risk of experiencing any SevAE (grade 3 or higher) with PARPi (54%) compared with placebo (19%)(two studies, 1118 participants, RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.99; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There is probably a slight reduction in QoL with PARPi, although this may not be clinically significant (one study, 362 participants; MD -3.00, 95%CI -4.48 to -1.52; moderate-certainty evidence). Recurrent, platinum-sensitive EOC Overall, 10 studies evaluated the effect of PARPi in recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC. Three studies compared PARPi monotherapy with chemotherapy alone. PARPi may result in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 331 participants; HR 0.95, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence) (percentage alive at 36 months 18% with PARPi versus 17% for placebo). Evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PARPi on PFS (three studies, 739 participants; HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.56 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months 26% with PARPi versus 22% for placebo). There may be little to no difference in rates of any SevAE (grade 3 or higher) with PARPi (50%) than chemotherapy alone (47%) (one study, 254 participants; RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.39; low-certainty evidence). Four studies compared PARPi monotherapy as maintenance with placebo. PARPi may result in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 560 participants; HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.20; moderate-certainty evidence)(percentage alive at 36 months 21% with PARPi versus 17% for placebo). However, evidence suggests that PARPi as maintenance therapy results in a large PFS (four studies, 1677 participants; HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.42; high-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months 37% with PARPi versus 5.5% for placebo). PARPi maintenance therapy may result in a large increase in any SevAE (51%) (grade 3 or higher) than placebo (19%)(four studies, 1665 participants, RR 2.62, 95%CI 1.85 to 3.72; low-certainty evidence). PARPi compared with chemotherapy may result in little or no change in QoL (one study, 229 participants, MD 1.20, 95%CI -1.75 to 4.16; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent, platinum-resistant EOC Two studies compared PARPi with chemotherapy. The certainty of evidence in both studies was graded as very low. Overall, there was minimal information on the QoL and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS PARPi maintenance treatment after chemotherapy may improve PFS in women with newly-diagnosed and recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC; there may be little to no effect on OS, although OS data are immature. Overall, this is likely at the expense of an increase in SevAE. It is disappointing that data on quality of life outcomes are relatively sparse. More research is needed to determine whether PARPi have a role to play in platinum-resistant disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Neil Ryan
- The Academic Women's Health Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Michael's Hospital, Bristol, UK, Bristol, UK
| | - Alison J Wiggans
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Glocestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, UK
| | | | - Jo Morrison
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, GRACE Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Godolphin PJ, Rogozińska E, Fisher DJ, Vale CL, Tierney JF. Meta-analyses based on summary data can provide timely, thorough and reliable evidence: don't dismiss them yet. Nat Med 2022; 28:429-430. [PMID: 35145306 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-021-01675-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Peter J Godolphin
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - David J Fisher
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - Claire L Vale
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| | - Jayne F Tierney
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Rogozińska E, Daru J, Nicolaides M, Amezcua-Prieto C, Robinson S, Wang R, Godolphin PJ, Saborido CM, Zamora J, Khan KS, Thangaratinam S. Iron preparations for women of reproductive age with iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy (FRIDA): a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Haematol 2021; 8:e503-e512. [PMID: 34171281 PMCID: PMC7612251 DOI: 10.1016/s2352-3026(21)00137-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2020] [Revised: 04/30/2021] [Accepted: 04/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous iron preparations are available for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy. We aimed to provide a summary of the effectiveness and safety of iron preparations used in this setting. METHODS We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature for trials published in any language from Jan 1, 2011, to Feb 28, 2021. We included trials including pregnant women with iron deficiency anaemia and evaluating iron preparations, irrespective of administration route, with at least 60 mg of elemental iron, in comparison with another iron or non-iron preparation. Three authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and did a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane tool (version 1.0). The primary outcome was the effectiveness of iron preparations, evaluated by changes in haemoglobin concentration at 4 weeks from baseline. The secondary outcomes were change in serum ferritin concentration at 4 weeks from baseline and treatment-related severe and non-severe adverse events. We did random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. Side-effects were reported descriptively for each trial. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018100822. FINDINGS Among 3037 records screened, 128 full-text articles were further assessed for eligibility. Of the 53 eligible trials (reporting on 9145 women), 30 (15 interventions; 3243 women) contributed data to the network meta-analysis for haemoglobin and 15 (nine interventions; 1396 women) for serum ferritin. The risk of bias varied across the trials contributing to network meta-analysis, with 22 of 30 trials in the network meta-analysis for haemoglobin judged to have a high or medium global risk of bias. Compared with oral ferrous sulfate, intravenous iron sucrose improved both haemoglobin (mean difference 7·17 g/L, 95% CI 2·62-11·73; seven trials) and serum ferritin (mean difference 49·66 μg/L, 13·63-85·69; four trials), and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose improved haemoglobin (mean difference 8·52 g/L, 0·51-16·53; one trial). The evidence for other interventions compared with ferrous sulfate was insufficient. The most common side-effects with oral iron preparations were gastrointestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, and altered bowel movements). Side-effects were less common with parenteral iron preparations, although these included local pain, skin irratation, and, on rare occasions, allergic reactions. INTERPRETATION Iron preparations for treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy vary in effectiveness, with good evidence of benefit for intravenous iron sucrose and some evidence for intravenous ferric carboxymaltose. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the effectiveness of individual preparations before administration, to ensure effective treatment. FUNDING None.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jahnavi Daru
- Institute for Population Health Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
| | - Marios Nicolaides
- Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Carmen Amezcua-Prieto
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
| | - Susan Robinson
- Department of Haematology, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Rui Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Peter J Godolphin
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| | - Carlos Martín Saborido
- Department of Health Planning and Economics, National School of Public Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| | - Javier Zamora
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
| | - Khalid S Khan
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
McBain C, Lawrie TA, Rogozińska E, Kernohan A, Robinson T, Jefferies S. Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 5:CD013579. [PMID: 34559423 PMCID: PMC8121043 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013579.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine McBain
- Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS FT, Manchester, UK
- Geoffrey Jefferson Brain Research Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | | | | - Ashleigh Kernohan
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Tomos Robinson
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Sarah Jefferies
- Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Amezcua-Prieto C, Ross J, Rogozińska E, Mighiu P, Martínez-Ruiz V, Brohi K, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Khan KS, Thangaratinam S. Maternal trauma due to motor vehicle crashes and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e035562. [PMID: 33020077 PMCID: PMC7537450 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035562] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2019] [Revised: 07/09/2020] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To systematically review and quantify the effect of motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) in pregnancy on maternal and offspring outcomes. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data searched from inception until 1 July 2018. Searching was from June to August 2018 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Latin-American and Caribbean System on Health Sciences Information, Scientific Electronic Library Online, TRANSPORT, International Road Research Documentation, European Conference of Ministers of Transportation Databases, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register. PARTICIPANTS Studies were selected if they focused on the effects of exposure MVC during pregnancy versus non-exposure, with follow-up to verify outcomes in various settings, including secondary care, collision and emergency, and inpatient care. DATA SYNTHESIS For incidence data, we calculated a pooled estimate per 1000 women. For comparison of outcomes between women involved and those not involved in MVC, we calculated ORs with 95% CIs. Where possible, we statistically pooled the data using the random-effects model. The quality of studies used in the comparative analysis was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS We included 19 studies (3 222 066 women) of which the majority was carried out in high-income countries (18/19). In population-level studies of women involved in MVC, maternal death occurred in 3.6 per 1000 (95% CI 0.25-10.42; 3 studies, 12 000 women; Tau=1.77), and fetal death or stillbirth in 6.6 per 1000 (95% CI 3.81-10.12; 8 studies, 47 992 women; I2=92.6%). Pooled incidence of complications per 1000 women involved in MVC was labour induction (276.43), preterm delivery (191.90) and caesarean section (166.65). Compared with women not involved in MVC, those involved had increased odds of placental abruption (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.27-1.63; 3 studies, 1 500 825 women) and maternal death (OR 202.27; 95% CI 110.60-369.95; 1 study, 1 094 559 women). CONCLUSION Pregnant women involved in MVC were at higher risk of maternal death and complications than those not involved. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42018100788.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carmen Amezcua-Prieto
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada Faculty of Medicine, Granada, Andalucía, Spain
- CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Granada, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria, ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain
| | - Jennifer Ross
- Centre for Trauma Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
- Meta-analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Patritia Mighiu
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| | - Virginia Martínez-Ruiz
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada Faculty of Medicine, Granada, Andalucía, Spain
- CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Granada, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria, ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain
| | - Karim Brohi
- Centre for Trauma Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada Faculty of Medicine, Granada, Andalucía, Spain
- CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Granada, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria, ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain
| | - Khalid Saeed Khan
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada Faculty of Medicine, Granada, Andalucía, Spain
- CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Granada, Spain
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Rogozińska E, Gargon E, Olmedo-Requena R, Asour A, Cooper NAM, Vale CL, van’t Hooft J. Methods used to assess outcome consistency in clinical studies: A literature-based evaluation. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0235485. [PMID: 32639999 PMCID: PMC7343158 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235485] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2020] [Accepted: 06/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Evaluation studies of outcomes used in clinical research and their consistency are appearing more frequently in the literature, as a key part of the core outcome set (COS) development. Current guidance suggests such evaluation studies should use systematic review methodology as their default. We aimed to examine the methods used. We searched the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database (up to May 2019) supplementing it with additional resources. We included evaluation studies of outcome consistency in clinical studies across health subjects and used a subset of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 (items 1-9) to assess their methods. Of 93 included evaluation studies of outcome consistency (90 full reports, three summaries), 91% (85/93) reported performing literature searches in at least one bibliographic database, and 79% (73/93) was labelled as a "systematic review". The evaluations varied in terms of satisfying AMSTAR 2 criteria, such that 81/93 (87%) had implemented PICO in the research question, whereas only 5/93 (6%) had included the exclusions list. None of the evaluation studies explained how inconsistency of outcomes was detected, however, 80/90 (88%) concluded inconsistency in individual outcomes (66%, 55/90) or outcome domains (20%, 18/90). Methods used in evaluation studies of outcome consistency in clinical studies differed considerably. Despite frequent being labelled as a "systematic review", adoption of systematic review methodology is selective. While the impact on COS development is unknown, authors of these studies should refrain from labelling them as "systematic review" and focus on ensuring that the methods used to generate the different outcomes and outcome domains are reported transparently.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewelina Rogozińska
- Meta-Analysis Group, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, England, United Kingdom
- Women’s Health Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| | - Elizabeth Gargon
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, United Kingdom
| | - Rocío Olmedo-Requena
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain
| | - Amani Asour
- Women’s Health Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom
| | - Natalie A. M. Cooper
- Women’s Health Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom
| | - Claire L. Vale
- Meta-Analysis Group, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, England, United Kingdom
| | - Janneke van’t Hooft
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Lawrie TA, McBain C, Rogozińska E, Kernohan A, Robinson T, Lawrie I, Jefferies S. Treatment options for recurrent glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013579] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Theresa A Lawrie
- The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd; 3rd Floor Northgate House Upper Borough Walls Bath UK BA1 1RG
| | - Catherine McBain
- The Christie NHS FT; Clinical Oncology; Wilmslow Road Withington Manchester Greater Manchester UK M20 4BX
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd; 3rd Floor Northgate House Upper Borough Walls Bath UK BA1 1RG
| | - Ashleigh Kernohan
- Newcastle University; Institute of Health & Society; Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road Newcastle upon Tyne UK NE2 4AA
| | - Tomos Robinson
- Newcastle University; Institute of Health & Society; Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road Newcastle upon Tyne UK NE2 4AA
| | - Imogen Lawrie
- The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd; 3rd Floor Northgate House Upper Borough Walls Bath UK BA1 1RG
| | - Sarah Jefferies
- Addenbrooke's Hospital; Department of Oncology; Hills Road Cambridge UK CB2 0QQ
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Hanna C, Lawrie TA, Rogozińska E, Kernohan A, Jefferies S, Bulbeck H, Ali UM, Robinson T, Grant R. Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 3:CD013261. [PMID: 32202316 PMCID: PMC7086476 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013261.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour for which the standard of care is maximum surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy, when possible. Age is an important consideration in this disease, as older age is associated with shorter survival and a higher risk of treatment-related toxicity. OBJECTIVES To determine the most effective and best-tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost-effectiveness associated with these approaches. SEARCH METHODS We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to 3 April 2019, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to database closure. We handsearched clinical trial registries and selected neuro-oncology society conference proceedings from the past five years. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials (RCTs) of treatments for glioblastoma in elderly people. We defined 'elderly' as 70+ years but included studies defining 'elderly' as over 65+ years if so reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods for study selection and data extraction. Where sufficient data were available, treatment options were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA) using Stata software (version 15.1). For outcomes with insufficient data for NMA, pairwise meta-analysis were conducted in RevMan. The GRADE approach was used to grade the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 1818 participants. Six were conducted exclusively among elderly people (either defined as 65 years or older or 70 years or older) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the other six reported data for an elderly subgroup among a broader age range of participants. Most participants were capable of self-care. Study quality was commonly undermined by lack of outcome assessor blinding and attrition. NMA was only possible for overall survival; other analyses were pair-wise meta-analyses or narrative syntheses. Seven trials contributed to the NMA for overall survival, with interventions including supportive care only (one trial arm); hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT40; four trial arms); standard radiotherapy (RT60; five trial arms); temozolomide (TMZ; three trial arms); chemoradiotherapy (CRT; three trial arms); bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy (BEV_CRT; one trial arm); and bevacizumab with radiotherapy (BEV_RT). Compared with supportive care only, NMA evidence suggested that all treatments apart from BEV_RT prolonged survival to some extent. Overall survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with RT40 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.80) and low-certainty evidence suggests that CRT may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ (TMZ versus CRT: HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.98). Low-certainty evidence also suggests that adding BEV to CRT may make little or no difference (BEV_CRT versus CRT: HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.48 to 1.44). We could not compare the survival effects of CRT with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules (60 Gy/30 fractions and 40 Gy/15 fractions) due to a lack of data. When treatments were ranked according to their effects on OS, CRT ranked higher than TMZ, RT and supportive care only, with the latter ranked last. BEV plus RT was the only treatment for which there was no clear benefit in OS over supportive care only. One trial comparing tumour treating fields (TTF) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (TTF_AC) with adjuvant chemotherapy alone could not be included in the NMA as participants were randomised after receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, not before. Findings from the trial suggest that the intervention probably improves overall survival in this selected patient population. We were unable to perform NMA for other outcomes due to insufficient data. Pairwise analyses were conducted for the following. Quality of life Moderate-certainty narrative evidence suggests that overall, there may be little difference in QoL between TMZ and RT, except for discomfort from communication deficits, which are probably more common with RT (1 study, 306 participants, P = 0.002). Data on QoL for other comparisons were sparse, partly due to high dropout rates, and the certainty of the evidence tended to be low or very low. Progression-free survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61); moderate-certainty evidence suggests that RT60 probably increases time to disease progression compared with supportive care only (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.46), and that BEV_RT probably increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78). Evidence for other treatment comparisons was of low- or very low-certainty. Severe adverse events Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that TMZ probably increases the risk of grade 3+ thromboembolic events compared with RT60 (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.94; participants = 373; studies = 1) and also the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Moderate-certainty evidence also suggests that CRT probably increases the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia compared with hypofractionated RT alone. Adding BEV to CRT probably increases the risk of thromboembolism (RR 16.63, 95% CI 1.00 to 275.42; moderate-certainty evidence). Economic evidence There is a paucity of economic evidence regarding the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Only one economic evaluation on two short course radiotherapy regimen (25 Gy versus 40 Gy) was identified and its findings were considered unreliable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For elderly people with glioblastoma who are self-caring, evidence suggests that CRT prolongs survival compared with RT and may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ alone. For those undergoing RT or TMZ therapy, there is probably little difference in QoL overall. Systemic anti-cancer treatments TMZ and BEV carry a higher risk of severe haematological and thromboembolic events and CRT is probably associated with a higher risk of these events. Current evidence provides little justification for using BEV in elderly patients outside a clinical trial setting. Whilst the novel TTF device appears promising, evidence on QoL and tolerability is needed in an elderly population. QoL and economic assessments of CRT versus TMZ and RT are needed. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed, in which a broader scope of costs (both direct and indirect) and outcomes should be included.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine Hanna
- University of GlasgowDepartment of OncologyBeatson West of Scotland Cancer CentreGreat Western RoadGlasgowScotlandUKG4 9DL
| | - Theresa A Lawrie
- The Evidence‐Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd3rd Floor Northgate HouseUpper Borough WallsBathUKBA1 1RG
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- The Evidence‐Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd3rd Floor Northgate HouseUpper Borough WallsBathUKBA1 1RG
| | - Ashleigh Kernohan
- Newcastle UniversityInstitute of Health & SocietyBaddiley‐Clark Building, Richardson RoadNewcastle upon TyneUKNE2 4AA
| | - Sarah Jefferies
- Addenbrooke's HospitalDepartment of OncologyHills RoadCambridgeUKCB2 0QQ
| | - Helen Bulbeck
- brainstrustDirector of Services4 Yvery CourtCastle RoadCowesIsle of WightUKPO31 7QG
| | - Usama M Ali
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Population HealthRoosevelt DriveOld Road CampusOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LF
| | - Tomos Robinson
- Newcastle UniversityInstitute of Health & SocietyBaddiley‐Clark Building, Richardson RoadNewcastle upon TyneUKNE2 4AA
| | - Robin Grant
- Western General HospitalEdinburgh Centre for Neuro‐Oncology (ECNO)Crewe RoadEdinburghScotlandUKEH4 2XU
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Vale C, Brihoum M, Chabaud S, Cook A, Fisher D, Forcat S, Fraser-Browne C, Herschtal A, Kneebone A, Nénan S, Parker C, Parmar M, Pearse M, Richaud P, Rogozińska E, Sargos P, Sydes M, Tierney J. Adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer? A prospectively planned aggregate data meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz394.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
|
21
|
Rogozińska E, Zamora J, Marlin N, Betrán AP, Astrup A, Bogaerts A, Cecatti JG, Dodd JM, Facchinetti F, Geiker NRW, Haakstad LAH, Hauner H, Jensen DM, Kinnunen TI, Mol BWJ, Owens J, Phelan S, Renault KM, Salvesen KÅ, Shub A, Surita FG, Stafne SN, Teede H, van Poppel MNM, Vinter CA, Khan KS, Thangaratinam S. Gestational weight gain outside the Institute of Medicine recommendations and adverse pregnancy outcomes: analysis using individual participant data from randomised trials. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19:322. [PMID: 31477075 PMCID: PMC6719382 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2472-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 75] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2018] [Accepted: 08/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND High Body Mass Index (BMI) and gestational weight gain (GWG) affect an increasing number of pregnancies. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has issued recommendations on the optimal GWG for women according to their pre-pregnancy BMI (healthy, overweight or obese). It has been shown that pregnant women rarely met the recommendations; however, it is unclear by how much. Previous studies also adjusted the analyses for various women's characteristics making their comparison challenging. METHODS We analysed individual participant data (IPD) of healthy women with a singleton pregnancy and a BMI of 18.5 kg/m2 or more from the control arms of 36 randomised trials (16 countries). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the association between GWG outside (above or below) the IOM recommendations (2009) and risks of caesarean section, preterm birth, and large or small for gestational age (LGA or SGA) infants. The association was examined overall, within the BMI categories and by quartile of GWG departure from the IOM recommendations. We obtained aOR using mixed-effects logistic regression, accounting for the within-study clustering and a priori identified characteristics. RESULTS Out of 4429 women (from 33 trials) meeting the inclusion criteria, two thirds gained weight outside the IOM recommendations (1646 above; 1291 below). The median GWG outside the IOM recommendations was 3.1 kg above and 2.7 kg below. In comparison to GWG within the IOM recommendations, GWG above was associated with increased odds of caesarean section (aOR 1.50; 95%CI 1.25, 1.80), LGA (2.00; 1.58, 2.54), and reduced odds of SGA (0.66; 0.50, 0.87); no significant effect on preterm birth was detected. The relationship between GWG below the IOM recommendation and caesarean section or LGA was inconclusive; however, the odds of preterm birth (1.94; 1.31, 2.28) and SGA (1.52; 1.18, 1.96) were increased. CONCLUSIONS Consistently with previous findings, adherence to the IOM recommendations seem to help achieve better pregnancy outcomes. Nevertheless, even in the context of clinical trials, women find it difficult to adhere to them. Further research should focus on identifying ways of achieving a healthier GWG as defined by the IOM recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewelina Rogozińska
- Meta-Analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, 90 High Holborn, 2nd Floor, London, WC1V 6LJ UK
- Women’s Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Javier Zamora
- Women’s Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS) CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain
| | - Nadine Marlin
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Ana Pilar Betrán
- Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Arne Astrup
- Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Nørre Allé 51, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Annick Bogaerts
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 - Box 805, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for Research and Innovation in Care (CRIC), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Jose G. Cecatti
- Rua Tessália Vieira de Camargo, 126 Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz, São Paulo, Campinas CEP, 13083-887 Brazil
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
| | - Jodie M. Dodd
- Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Women’s and Children’s Health Network, Women’s and Babies Division, 72 King William St, North Adelaide, SA 5006 Australia
- The Robinson Research Institute, School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Norwich Centre, 55 King William St, North Adelaide, SA 5006 Australia
| | - Fabio Facchinetti
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Mother Infant Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, largo del Pozzo 71, 41124 Modena, Italy
| | - Nina R. W. Geiker
- Clinical Nutrition Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Kildegårdsvej 28, DK-2900 Hellerup, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Lene A. H. Haakstad
- Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Sognsveien 220, 0863 Oslo, Norway
| | - Hans Hauner
- Else Kröner-Fresenius-Zentrum für Ernährungsmedizin, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 62, 80992 Munich, Germany
| | - Dorte M. Jensen
- Steno Diabetes Center Odense and Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Kløvervænget 6/4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Tarja I. Kinnunen
- Unit of Health Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, 33014 Tampere, Finland
| | - Ben W. J. Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800 Australia
| | - Julie Owens
- The Robinson Research Institute, School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Norwich Centre, 55 King William St, North Adelaide, SA 5006 Australia
- Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research Office, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Suzanne Phelan
- Kinesiology Department, California Polytechnic State University, 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 USA
| | - Kristina M. Renault
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Kettegård Alle 30, 2650 Hvidovre, Denmark
- Obstetric Clinic, JMC, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Kjell Å. Salvesen
- Department of Laboratory Medicine Children’s and Women’s Health, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Olav Kyrres gate 11, 7006 Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Alexis Shub
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia
- Department of Perinatal Medicine, Mercy Hospital for Women, Postboks 8905, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Fernanda G. Surita
- Rua Tessália Vieira de Camargo, 126 Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz, São Paulo, Campinas CEP, 13083-887 Brazil
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
| | - Signe N. Stafne
- Department of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Clinical Service, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Helena Teede
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health, Monash University and Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Clayton, VIC 3124 Australia
| | - Mireille N. M. van Poppel
- Institute of Sports Science, University of Graz, Mozartgasse 14,, 8010 Graz, Austria
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Christina A. Vinter
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Sdr. Boulevard 29, DK-5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Khalid S. Khan
- Women’s Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- Women’s Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lawrie TA, Rogozińska E, Sobiesuo P, Vogel JP, Ternent L, Oladapo OT. A systematic review of the cost‐effectiveness of uterotonic agents for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 146:56-64. [DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2018] [Revised: 03/26/2019] [Accepted: 05/01/2019] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Theresa A. Lawrie
- Department of Reproductive Health and Research UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) WHO Geneva Switzerland
- Evidence‐Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd Bath UK
| | | | - Pauline Sobiesuo
- Health Economics Group Institute of Health and Society Newcastle University Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne UK
| | - Joshua P. Vogel
- Department of Reproductive Health and Research UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) WHO Geneva Switzerland
- Maternal and Child Health Burnet Institute Melbourne Vic. Australia
| | - Laura Ternent
- Health Economics Group Institute of Health and Society Newcastle University Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne UK
| | - Olufemi T. Oladapo
- Department of Reproductive Health and Research UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) WHO Geneva Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Thangaratinam S, Marlin N, Newton S, Weckesser A, Bagary M, Greenhill L, Rikunenko R, D'Amico M, Rogozińska E, Kelso A, Hard K, Coleman J, Moss N, Roberts T, Middleton L, Dodds J, Pullen A, Eldridge S, Pirie A, Denny E, McCorry D, Khan KS. AntiEpileptic drug Monitoring in PREgnancy (EMPiRE): a double-blind randomised trial on effectiveness and acceptability of monitoring strategies. Health Technol Assess 2019; 22:1-152. [PMID: 29737274 DOI: 10.3310/hta22230] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pregnant women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may experience a reduction in serum AED levels. This has the potential to worsen seizure control. OBJECTIVE To determine if, in pregnant women with epilepsy on AEDs, additional therapeutic drug monitoring reduces seizure deterioration compared with clinical features monitoring after a reduction in serum AED levels. DESIGN A double-blind, randomised trial nested within a cohort study was conducted and a qualitative study of acceptability of the two strategies was undertaken. Stratified block randomisation with a 1 : 1 allocation method was carried out. SETTING Fifty obstetric and epilepsy clinics in secondary and tertiary care units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS Pregnant women with epilepsy on one or more of the following AEDs: lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin or levetiracetam. Women with a ≥ 25% decrease in serum AED level from baseline were randomised to therapeutic drug monitoring or clinical features monitoring strategies. INTERVENTIONS In the therapeutic drug monitoring group, clinicians had access to clinical findings and monthly serum AED levels to guide AED dosage adjustment for seizure control. In the clinical features monitoring group, AED dosage adjustment was based only on clinical features. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome - seizure deterioration, defined as time to first seizure and to all seizures after randomisation per woman until 6 weeks post partum. Secondary outcomes - pregnancy complications in mother and offspring, maternal quality of life, seizure rates in cohorts with stable serum AED level, AED dose exposure and adverse events related to AEDs. ANALYSIS Analysis of time to first and to all seizures after randomisation was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model, and multivariate failure time analysis by the Andersen-Gill model. The effects were reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios. RESULTS A total of 130 women were randomised to the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 133 to the clinical features monitoring group; 294 women did not have a reduction in serum AED level. A total of 127 women in the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 130 women in the clinical features monitoring group (98% of complete data) were included in the primary analysis. There were no significant differences in the time to first seizure (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.2) or timing of all seizures after randomisation (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.5) between both trial groups. In comparison with the group with stable serum AED levels, there were no significant increases in seizures in the clinical features monitoring (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) or therapeutic drug monitoring group (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) associated with a reduction in serum AED levels. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups, except for higher cord blood levels of lamotrigine (MD 0.55 mg/l, 95% CI 0.11 to 1 mg/l) or levetiracetam (MD 7.8 mg/l, 95% CI 0.86 to 14.8 mg/l) in the therapeutic drug monitoring group than in the clinical features monitoring group. There were no differences between the groups on daily AED exposure or quality of life. An increase in exposure to lamotrigine, levetiracetam and carbamazepine significantly increased the cord blood levels of the AEDs, but not maternal or fetal complications. Women with epilepsy perceived the need for weighing up their increased vulnerability to seizures during pregnancy against the side effects of AEDs. LIMITATIONS Fewer women than the original target were recruited. CONCLUSION There is no evidence to suggest that regular monitoring of serum AED levels in pregnancy improves seizure control or affects maternal or fetal outcomes. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS Further evaluation of the risks of seizure deterioration for various threshold levels of reduction in AEDs and the long-term neurodevelopment of infants born to mothers in both randomised groups is needed. An individualised prediction model will help to identify those women who need close monitoring in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01253916. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shakila Thangaratinam
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Nadine Marlin
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sian Newton
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Annalise Weckesser
- Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
| | - Manny Bagary
- Neuropsychiatry Department, The Barberry, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Rachel Rikunenko
- Research and Development, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Maria D'Amico
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Andrew Kelso
- Department of Neurology, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Kelly Hard
- Research and Development, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jamie Coleman
- School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ngawai Moss
- Patient and Public Involvement group member, Katie's Team, Katherine Twining Network, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Tracy Roberts
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lee Middleton
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Julie Dodds
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | | | - Sandra Eldridge
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Alexander Pirie
- Research and Development, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Elaine Denny
- Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
| | - Doug McCorry
- Neuropsychiatry Department, The Barberry, Birmingham, UK
| | - Khalid S Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Affiliation(s)
- Theresa A Lawrie
- 1st Floor Education Centre, Royal United Hospital; Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group; Combe Park Bath UK BA1 3NG
| | - Catherine R Hanna
- University of Glasgow; Department of Oncology; Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre Great Western Road Glasgow Scotland UK G4 9DL
| | | | - Ashleigh Kernohan
- Newcastle University; Institute of Health & Society; Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road Newcastle upon Tyne UK NE2 4AA
| | - Luke Vale
- Newcastle University; Institute of Health & Society; Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road Newcastle upon Tyne UK NE2 4AA
| | - Helen Bulbeck
- brainstrust; Director of Services; 4 Yvery Court Castle Road Cowes Isle of Wight UK PO31 7QG
| | - Usama M Ali
- University of Oxford; Centre for Statistics in Medicine; 7 Dewsbury Road Luton Bedfordshire UK LU3 2HJ
| | - Robin Grant
- Western General Hospital; Edinburgh Centre for Neuro-Oncology (ECNO); Crewe Road Edinburgh Scotland UK EH4 2XU
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Rogozińska E, Khan K. Grading evidence from test accuracy studies: what makes it challenging compared with the grading of effectiveness studies? ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 22:81-84. [PMID: 28600330 DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110717] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2017] [Revised: 05/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
Guideline panels need to process a sizeable amount of information to issue a decision on whether to recommend a health technology or not. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) is being frequently applied in guideline development to facilitate this task, typically for the synthesis of effectiveness research. Questions regarding the accuracy of medical tests are ubiquitous, and they temporally precede questions about therapy. However, literature summarising the experience of applying GRADE approach to accuracy evaluations is not as rich as one for effectiveness evidence. Type of study design (cross-sectional), two-dimensional nature of the performance measures (sensitivity and specificity), propensity towards a higher level of between-study heterogeneity, poor reporting of quality features and uncertainty about how best to assess for publication bias among other features make this task challenging. This article presents solutions adopted to addresses above challenges for judicious estimation of the strength of test accuracy evidence used to inform evidence syntheses for guideline development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Department of Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University London, London, UK
| | - Khalid Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Department of Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Sahi SV, Rogozińska E, Sobhy S, Khan KS. Accuracy of tests used to detect infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic pregnant women: a systematic review. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2018; 29:375-382. [PMID: 28914654 DOI: 10.1097/gco.0000000000000411] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in pregnancy is linked to increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Currently, PCR or DNA-based tests are the gold standard when detecting the infection; however, they are costly and require access to specialist equipment. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the accuracy of available tests to detect infection in an asymptomatic pregnant population. RECENT FINDINGS There was evidence of the superior accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests to cell culture in nonpregnant asymptomatic women; however, there are multiple commercial nucleic acid amplification tests with varying sensitivities and specificities. There is a gap in current literature on accuracy studies in an asymptomatic pregnant population, particularly within routine antenatal settings. SUMMARY There is a need for a point-of-care test for Chlamydia in pregnancy. Future test accuracy studies for this population should aim to use a universally established reference standard. Further research should provide relevant evidence to guide practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siew-Veena Sahi
- aWomen's Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom bMultidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Rogozińska E, Marlin N, Jackson L, Rayanagoudar G, Ruifrok AE, Dodds J, Molyneaux E, van Poppel MN, Poston L, Vinter CA, McAuliffe F, Dodd JM, Owens J, Barakat R, Perales M, Cecatti JG, Surita F, Yeo S, Bogaerts A, Devlieger R, Teede H, Harrison C, Haakstad L, Shen GX, Shub A, Beltagy NE, Motahari N, Khoury J, Tonstad S, Luoto R, Kinnunen TI, Guelfi K, Facchinetti F, Petrella E, Phelan S, Scudeller TT, Rauh K, Hauner H, Renault K, de Groot CJ, Sagedal LR, Vistad I, Stafne SN, Mørkved S, Salvesen KÅ, Jensen DM, Vitolo M, Astrup A, Geiker NR, Kerry S, Barton P, Roberts T, Riley RD, Coomarasamy A, Mol BW, Khan KS, Thangaratinam S. Effects of antenatal diet and physical activity on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data meta-analysis and health economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2018; 21:1-158. [PMID: 28795682 DOI: 10.3310/hta21410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 178] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diet- and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy have the potential to alter maternal and child outcomes. OBJECTIVES To assess whether or not the effects of diet and lifestyle interventions vary in subgroups of women, based on maternal body mass index (BMI), age, parity, Caucasian ethnicity and underlying medical condition(s), by undertaking an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We also evaluated the association of gestational weight gain (GWG) with adverse pregnancy outcomes and assessed the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment database were searched from October 2013 to March 2015 (to update a previous search). REVIEW METHODS Researchers from the International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network shared the primary data. For each intervention type and outcome, we performed a two-step IPD random-effects meta-analysis, for all women (except underweight) combined and for each subgroup of interest, to obtain summary estimates of effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and synthesised the differences in effects between subgroups. In the first stage, we fitted a linear regression adjusted for baseline (for continuous outcomes) or a logistic regression model (for binary outcomes) in each study separately; estimates were combined across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. We quantified the relationship between weight gain and complications, and undertook a decision-analytic model-based economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS Diet and lifestyle interventions reduced GWG by an average of 0.70 kg (95% CI -0.92 to -0.48 kg; 33 studies, 9320 women). The effects on composite maternal outcome [summary odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 24 studies, 8852 women] and composite fetal/neonatal outcome (summary OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 18 studies, 7981 women) were not significant. The effect did not vary with baseline BMI, age, ethnicity, parity or underlying medical conditions for GWG, and composite maternal and fetal outcomes. Lifestyle interventions reduce Caesarean sections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99), but not other individual maternal outcomes such as gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16) and preterm birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on fetal outcomes. The interventions were not cost-effective. GWG, including adherence to the Institute of Medicine-recommended targets, was not associated with a reduction in complications. Predictors of GWG were maternal age (summary estimate -0.10 kg, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.06 kg) and multiparity (summary estimate -0.73 kg, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.23 kg). LIMITATIONS The findings were limited by the lack of standardisation in the components of intervention, residual heterogeneity in effects across studies for most analyses and the unavailability of IPD in some studies. CONCLUSION Diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy are clinically effective in reducing GWG irrespective of risk factors, with no effects on composite maternal and fetal outcomes. FUTURE WORK The differential effects of lifestyle interventions on individual pregnancy outcomes need evaluation. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003804. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Nadine Marlin
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| | - Louise Jackson
- Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Girish Rayanagoudar
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Anneloes E Ruifrok
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Julie Dodds
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Emma Molyneaux
- Section of Women's Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Mireille Nm van Poppel
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research (EMGO+), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Institute of Sport Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Lucilla Poston
- Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
| | - Christina A Vinter
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Fionnuala McAuliffe
- School of Medicine & Medical Science, UCD Institute of Food and Health, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Jodie M Dodd
- The Robinson Research Institute, School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia.,Women's and Children's Health Network, Women's and Babies Division, North Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Julie Owens
- The Robinson Research Institute, School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Ruben Barakat
- Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Maria Perales
- Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jose G Cecatti
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
| | - Fernanda Surita
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
| | - SeonAe Yeo
- School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Annick Bogaerts
- Research Unit Healthy Living, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg, Leuven, Belgium.,Centre for Research and Innovation in Care, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Roland Devlieger
- Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg, Hasselt and University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Helena Teede
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Cheryce Harrison
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Lene Haakstad
- Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Department of Sports Medicine, Oslo, Norway
| | - Garry X Shen
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Alexis Shub
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Nermeen El Beltagy
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
| | - Narges Motahari
- Department of Sport Physiology, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Mazandaran University, Babolsar, Iran
| | - Janette Khoury
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Serena Tonstad
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Riitta Luoto
- UKK Institute for Health Promotion Research, Tampere, Finland
| | - Tarja I Kinnunen
- School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Kym Guelfi
- School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Fabio Facchinetti
- Mother-Infant Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Elisabetta Petrella
- Mother-Infant Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Suzanne Phelan
- Kinesiology Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
| | - Tânia T Scudeller
- Department of Management and Health Care, São Paulo Federal University, Santos, Brazil
| | - Kathrin Rauh
- Else Kröner-Fresenius-Center for Nutritional Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.,Competence Centre for Nutrition, Freising, Germany
| | - Hans Hauner
- Else Kröner-Fresenius-Center for Nutritional Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | - Kristina Renault
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Christianne Jm de Groot
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Linda R Sagedal
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway
| | - Ingvild Vistad
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway
| | - Signe Nilssen Stafne
- Department of Public Health and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.,Clinical Services, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Siv Mørkved
- Department of Public Health and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.,Clinical Services, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Kjell Å Salvesen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.,Department of Laboratory Medicine Children's and Women's Health, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Dorte M Jensen
- Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Márcia Vitolo
- Department of Nutrition and the Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Arne Astrup
- Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Nina Rw Geiker
- Nutritional Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Sally Kerry
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| | - Pelham Barton
- Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tracy Roberts
- Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Arri Coomarasamy
- School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ben Willem Mol
- The South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Khalid S Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Rogozińska E, Eckert LO, Khan KS. Reducing research waste through the standardisation of outcomes and definitions. BJOG 2018; 126:308-309. [PMID: 29637678 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15238] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/29/2018] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- E Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Queen Marys University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (MESH), Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - L O Eckert
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - K S Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit, Queen Marys University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Torloni MR, Riera R, Rogozińska E, Tunçalp Ö, Gülmezoglu AM, Widmer M. Systematic review of shorter versus longer duration of bladder catheterization after surgical repair of urinary obstetric fistula. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018; 142:15-22. [PMID: 29441572 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2017] [Revised: 12/03/2017] [Accepted: 02/09/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bladder catheterization duration after urinary obstetric fistula surgery varies widely. OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of bladder catheterization duration after urinary obstetric fistula surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, GIM, and POPLINE databases were searched, without language restrictions, using "obstetric urinary fistula" and "catheterization" from inception to September 30, 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized controlled trials comparing shorter versus longer (>10 days) bladder catheterization after urinary obstetric fistula repair were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted. The GRADE system was used to assess evidence quality. MAIN RESULTS Two unblinded non-inferiority trials (684 patients combined) were included. There were no differences between shorter and longer bladder catheterization in the risk of fistula repair breakdown either before (relative risk [RR] 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-2.64) or after (RR 1.64; 95% CI 0.81-3.31) hospital discharge. Similarly, urinary infection (RR 5.18; 95% CI 0.25-107.44); urinary incontinence before (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.54-2.43) or after (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.62-2.18) discharge; urinary retention (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79-2.27); or extended hospital stay (RR 9.33; 95% CI 0.51-172.41) were not associated with duration of catheterization. Evidence quality was low or moderate. CONCLUSIONS Shorter, compared to longer, bladder catheterization duration after urinary obstetric fistula surgery was not associated with significant outcome differences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Regina Torloni
- Department of Medicine, Evidence Based Health Care Post-Graduate Program, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Rachel Riera
- Department of Medicine, Evidence Based Health Care Post-Graduate Program, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (MESH), Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University London, London, UK
| | - Özge Tunçalp
- Department of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - A Metin Gülmezoglu
- Department of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Mariana Widmer
- Department of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Dos Santos F, Daru J, Rogozińska E, Cooper NAM. Accuracy of fetal fibronectin for assessing preterm birth risk in asymptomatic pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97:657-667. [DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2017] [Accepted: 01/10/2018] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jahnavi Daru
- Women's Health Research Unit; Queen Mary University of London; London UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit; Queen Mary University of London; London UK
- Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (MESH); Queen Mary University of London; London UK
| | - Natalie A. M. Cooper
- Barts Health NHS Trust; The Royal London Hospital; London UK
- Women's Health Research Unit; Queen Mary University of London; London UK
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Rogozińska E, Marlin N, Thangaratinam S, Khan KS, Zamora J. Meta-analysis using individual participant data from randomised trials: opportunities and limitations created by access to raw data. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2017; 22:157-162. [PMID: 28818966 DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/25/2017] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD), often described as the 'gold standard' for effectiveness evidence synthesis, is increasingly being deployed despite being more resource intensive than collating study-level results. Its professed virtues include the ability to incorporate unreported data and to standardise variables and their definitions across trials. In reality, the unreported data, although present in shared datasets, might still not be usable in the analysis. The characteristics of trial participants and their outcomes may be too diversely captured for harmonisation and too time and resource consuming to standardise. Embarking on an IPD meta-analysis can lead to unanticipated challenges which ought to be handled with pragmatism. The aim of this article is to discuss the opportunities created by access to IPD and the practical limitations placed on such meta-analyses, using an international IPD meta-analysis of trials on the effect of lifestyle interventions in pregnancy as an example. Despite the increasing uptake of IPD meta-analysis, they encounter old problems shared by other research methods. When embarking on IPD meta-analysis, it is essential to evaluate the trade-offs between the ambitions, and what is achievable due to constraints imposed by the condition of collected IPD. Furthermore, incorporation of aggregate data from trials where IPD was not available should be a mandatory sensitivity analysis that makes the evidence synthesis up-to-date.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Department of Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Nadine Marlin
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Department of Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Khalid S Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Department of Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Javier Zamora
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS) and CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Rogozińska E, Marlin N, Yang F, Dodd JM, Guelfi K, Teede H, Surita F, Jensen DM, Geiker NR, Astrup A, Yeo S, Kinnunen TI, Stafne SN, Cecatti JG, Bogaerts A, Hauner H, Mol BW, Scudeller TT, Vinter CA, Renault KM, Devlieger R, Thangaratinam S, Khan KS. Variations in reporting of outcomes in randomized trials on diet and physical activity in pregnancy: A systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2017; 43:1101-1110. [DOI: 10.1111/jog.13338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2016] [Revised: 01/17/2017] [Accepted: 02/25/2017] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit; Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry; London UK
- Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh); Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry; Queen Mary University of London; London UK
| | - Nadine Marlin
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit; Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry; Queen Mary University of London; London UK
| | - Fen Yang
- Human Reproduction; Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood and Reproduction; China
| | - Jodie M. Dodd
- The Robinson Research Institute; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, School of Medicine; The University of Adelaide; Adelaide Australia
- Women's and Children's Health Network, Women's and Babies Division; North Adelaide South Australia Australia
| | - Kym Guelfi
- Exercise Physiology and Biochemistry; The University of Western Australia; Crawley Western Australia Australia
| | - Helena Teede
- Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health; Monash University, Australia; Melbourne Australia
| | - Fernanda Surita
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; School of Medical Sciences; The University of Campinas (UNICAMP); São Paulo Brazil
| | - Dorte M. Jensen
- Department of Endocrinology; Odense University Hospital; Odense Denmark
| | - Nina R.W. Geiker
- Clinical Nutrition Research Unit; Nutrition Research Unit; Herlev and Gentofte Hospital; Copenhagen Denmark
| | - Arne Astrup
- Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports; University of Copenhagen; Copenhagen Denmark
| | - SeonAe Yeo
- School of Nursing; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Chapel Hill North Carolina USA
| | - Tarja I. Kinnunen
- School of Health Sciences; The University of Tampere; Tampere Finland
| | - Signe N. Stafne
- Department of Public Health and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine; Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Trondheim Norway
- Clinical Services, St. Olavs Hospital; Trondheim University Hospital Trondheim; Trondheim Norway
| | - Jose G. Cecatti
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; School of Medical Sciences; The University of Campinas (UNICAMP); São Paulo Brazil
| | - Annick Bogaerts
- Research Unit Healthy Living; University Colleges Leuven-Limburg; Diepenbeek Belgium
- Centre for Research & Innovation in Care; University of Antwerp; Antwerp Belgium
- Department Development and Regeneration; KU Leuven; Leuven Belgium
| | - Hans Hauner
- Center for Nutritional Medicine; Technische Universität München; Munich Germany
| | - Ben W. Mol
- The South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute; South Australia Australia
| | - Tânia T. Scudeller
- Department of Management and Health Care; São Paulo Federal University (UNIFESP); São Paulo Brazil
| | - Christina A. Vinter
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Odense University Hospital; The University of Southern Denmark; Odense Denmark
| | - Kristina M. Renault
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hvidovre Hospital; University of Copenhagen; Copenhagen Denmark
| | - Roland Devlieger
- Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; University Colleges Leuven-Limburg, Hasselt and University Hospitals KU Leuven; Leuven Belgium
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- Women's Health Research Unit; Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry; London UK
- Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh); Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry; Queen Mary University of London; London UK
| | - Khalid S. Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit; Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry; London UK
- Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh); Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry; Queen Mary University of London; London UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Rogozińska E, Kara-Newton L, Zamora JR, Khan KS. On-site test to detect syphilis in pregnancy: a systematic review of test accuracy studies. BJOG 2017; 124:734-741. [PMID: 28029229 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/17/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Syphilis in pregnancy can lead to fetal and neonatal death or congenital anomalies. Accurate on-site tests are an essential part of effective prevention of mother-to-child transmission of the disease. OBJECTIVE This systematic review assessed the accuracy of on-site tests to detect infection with Treponema pallidum in pregnant women. SEARCH STRATEGY Major databases were searched from inception to January 2016 using terms: 'pregnancy', 'antenatal', 'syphilis', 'Treponema pallidum' with their variations, and the search limit for the relevant study design. SELECTION CRITERIA We included studies that used dual reference standard (non-treponemal and treponemal tests) to detected syphilis in pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Extracted accuracy data were tabulated and pooled using hierarchical, bivariate random effects model. MAIN RESULTS Seven studies (combined sample 17 546) reporting the accuracy of four on-site tests met the eligibility criteria. On average, Determine™ and SD BioLine Syphilis 3.0 had the highest sensitivity of all the evaluated tests: 0.83 (95% CI 0.58, 0.98) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82, 0.89), respectively, with a high specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.89, 1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.94, 1.00), respectively. The Qualitative Rapid Plasma Reagin card commonly used in clinical practice had a pooled sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.54, 0.88) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.96, 0.99). CONCLUSION Immunochromatographic tests such as Determine™ and SD BioLine Syphilis 3.0 seem to be acceptable options in antenatal testing for syphilis, especially in resource-limited settings. Future research should seek more evidence to strengthen this claim. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT On-site test to detect syphilis-options during antenatal care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
- Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| | - L Kara-Newton
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| | - J R Zamora
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS) and CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain
| | - K S Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
- Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Flynn AC, Dalrymple K, Barr S, Poston L, Goff LM, Rogozińska E, van Poppel MNM, Rayanagoudar G, Yeo S, Barakat Carballo R, Perales M, Bogaerts A, Cecatti JG, Dodd J, Owens J, Devlieger R, Teede H, Haakstad L, Motahari-Tabari N, Tonstad S, Luoto R, Guelfi K, Petrella E, Phelan S, Scudeller TT, Hauner H, Renault K, Sagedal LR, Stafne SN, Vinter C, Astrup A, Geiker NRW, McAuliffe FM, Mol BW, Thangaratinam S. Dietary interventions in overweight and obese pregnant women: a systematic review of the content, delivery, and outcomes of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev 2016; 74:312-28. [PMID: 27083868 DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuw005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
CONTEXT Interventions targeting maternal obesity are a healthcare and public health priority. OBJECTIVE The objective of this review was to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the methodological designs implemented in dietary intervention trials for obesity in pregnancy. DATA SOURCES A systematic review of the literature, consistent with PRISMA guidelines, was performed as part of the International Weight Management in Pregnancy collaboration. STUDY SELECTION Thirteen randomized controlled trials, which aimed to modify diet and physical activity in overweight and obese pregnant women, were identified. DATA SYNTHESIS There was significant variability in the content, delivery, and dietary assessment methods of the dietary interventions examined. A number of studies demonstrated improved dietary behavior in response to diet and/or lifestyle interventions. Nine studies reduced gestational weight gain. CONCLUSION This review reveals large methodological variability in dietary interventions to control gestational weight gain and improve clinical outcomes in overweight and obese pregnant women. This lack of consensus limits the ability to develop clinical guidelines and apply the evidence in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela C Flynn
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Kathryn Dalrymple
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Suzanne Barr
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Lucilla Poston
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Louise M Goff
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Mireille N M van Poppel
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Girish Rayanagoudar
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - SeonAe Yeo
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Ruben Barakat Carballo
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Maria Perales
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Annick Bogaerts
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Jose G Cecatti
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Jodie Dodd
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Julie Owens
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Roland Devlieger
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Helena Teede
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Lene Haakstad
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Narges Motahari-Tabari
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Serena Tonstad
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Riitta Luoto
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Kym Guelfi
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Elisabetta Petrella
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Suzanne Phelan
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Tânia T Scudeller
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Hans Hauner
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Kristina Renault
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Linda Reme Sagedal
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Signe N Stafne
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Christina Vinter
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Arne Astrup
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Nina R W Geiker
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Fionnuala M McAuliffe
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Ben W Mol
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- A.C. Flynn is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, and the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre King's College London, London, United Kingdom. K. Dalrymple is with Nutricia, Early Life Nutrition, Trowbridge, United Kingdom. S. Barr is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. L. Poston is with the Division of Women's Health, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. L.M. Goff is with the Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. E. Rogozinska is with the Women's Health Research Unit and the Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. M.N.M. van Poppel is with the Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G. Rayanagoudar is with the Women's Health Research Unit, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. S. Yeo is with the School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. R. Barakat Carballo is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. M. Perales is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı'sica y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. A. Bogaerts is with the Division of Mother and Child, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Colleges Leuven-Limburg and Antwerp University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium. J.G. Cecatti is with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. J. Dod
| | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Rogozińska E, Chamillard M, Hitman GA, Khan KS, Thangaratinam S. Nutritional manipulation for the primary prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomised studies. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0115526. [PMID: 25719363 PMCID: PMC4342242 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 78] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2014] [Accepted: 11/25/2014] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The rise in gestational diabetes (GDM), defined as first onset or diagnosis of diabetes in pregnancy, is a global problem. GDM is often associated with unhealthy diet and is a major contributor to adverse outcomes maternal and fetal outcomes. Manipulation of nutrition has the potential to prevent GDM. METHODS We assessed the effects of nutritional manipulation in pregnancy on GDM and relevant maternal and fetal outcomes by a systematic review of the literature. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database from inception to March 2014 without any language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) of nutritional manipulation to prevent GDM were included. We summarised dichotomous data as relative risk (RR) and continuous data as standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS From 1761 citations, 20 RCTs (6,444 women) met the inclusion criteria. We identified the following interventions: diet-based (n = 6), mixed approach (diet and lifestyle) interventions (n = 13), and nutritional supplements (myo-inositol n = 1, diet with probiotics n = 1). Diet based interventions reduced the risk of GDM by 33% (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.39, 1.15). Mixed approach interventions based on diet and lifestyle had no effect on GDM (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89, 1.22). Nutritional supplements probiotics combined with diet (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.20, 0.78) and myo-inositol (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.16, 0.99) were assessed in one trial each and showed a beneficial effect. We observed a significant interaction between the groups based on BMI for diet-based intervention. The risk of GDM was reduced in obese and overweight pregnant women for GDM (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18, 0.86). CONCLUSIONS Nutritional manipulation in pregnancy based on diet or mixed approach do not appear to reduce the risk of GDM. Nutritional supplements show potential as agents for primary prevention of GDM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewelina Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Centre of Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Centre of Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Graham A Hitman
- Centre of Diabetes, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Khalid S Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit, Centre of Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Centre of Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- Women's Health Research Unit, Centre of Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Multidisciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub (mEsh), Centre of Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Meads C, Sutton AJ, Rosenthal AN, Małysiak S, Kowalska M, Zapalska A, Rogozińska E, Baldwin P, Ganesan R, Borowiack E, Barton P, Roberts T, Khan K, Sundar S. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in vulval cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2014; 110:2837-46. [PMID: 24867697 PMCID: PMC4056048 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2013] [Revised: 03/19/2014] [Accepted: 03/24/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy with technetium 99 (99mTc) and/or blue dye-enhanced lymphoscintigraphy in vulval cancer. METHODS Sensitive searches of databases were performed upto October 2013. Studies with at least 75% of women with FIGO stage IB or II vulval cancer evaluating SLN biopsy with 99mTc, blue dye or both with reference standard of inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) or clinical follow-up were included. Meta-analyses were performed using Meta-Disc version 1.4. RESULTS Of the 2950 references, 29 studies (1779 women) were included; most of them evaluated 99mTc combined with blue dye. Of these, 24 studies reported results for SLN followed by IFL, and 5 reported clinical follow-up only for SLN negatives. Pooling of all studies was inappropriate because of heterogeneity. Mean SLN detection rates were 94.0% for 99mTc, 68.7% for blue dye and 97.7% for both. SLN biopsy had pooled sensitivity of 95% (95% CI 92-98%) with negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% in studies using 99mTc/blue dye, ultrastaging and immunohistochemistry with IFL as reference. Pooled sensitivity for SLN with clinical follow-up for SLN-negatives was 91% (85-95%) with NPV 95.6%. Patients undergoing SLN biopsy experienced less morbidity than those undergoing IFL. CONCLUSIONS Sentinel lymph node biopsy using 99mTC, blue dye and ultrastaging with immunohistochemistry is highly accurate when restricted to carefully selected patients, within a rigorous protocol, with close follow-up and where sufficient numbers for learning curve optimisation exist. Patients must make an informed choice between the slightly higher groin recurrence rates of SLN biopsy vs the greater morbidity of IFL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Meads
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - A J Sutton
- Unit of Health Economics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - E Rogozińska
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - P Baldwin
- Addenbrooke's Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - R Ganesan
- Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, City Hospital and School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | | | - P Barton
- Unit of Health Economics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - T Roberts
- Unit of Health Economics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - K Khan
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - S Sundar
- Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, City Hospital and School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Ruifrok AE, van Poppel MNM, van Wely M, Rogozińska E, Khan KS, de Groot CJM, Thangaratinam S, Mol BW. Association between weight gain during pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes after dietary and lifestyle interventions: a meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31:353-64. [PMID: 23918523 DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1352484] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Lifestyle interventions in obese pregnant women reduce adverse maternal outcomes of pregnancy. However, the association between weight change due to interventions and the actual reduction in complications is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the association between gestational weight gain (GWG) and the rate of pregnancy complications. STUDY DESIGN The authors included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of lifestyle interventions during pregnancy on GWG and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. For each outcome they assessed the association between GWG and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS They analyzed data of 23 RCTs (4,990 women). Increased GWG was associated with a nonsignificant increase in the incidence of preeclampsia (PE) (0.2% per gained kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5 to 0.9%, p > 0.05), gestational diabetes (GDM) (0.3% per gained kg, 95% CI -0.5 to 1.0%, p > 0.05), and induction of labor (IOL) (1.5% per gained kg, 95% CI -0.9 to 3.9%, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Reduction in GWG due to lifestyle interventions in pregnancy had statistically nonsignificant effects on lowering the incidence of PE, GDM, and IOL. Possibly, the beneficial effect of lifestyle interventions on pregnancy outcomes is due to an effect independent of the reduction of GWG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A E Ruifrok
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M N M van Poppel
- Department of Public and Occupational Health and EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M van Wely
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E Rogozińska
- Women's Health Research Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
| | - K S Khan
- Women's Health Research Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
| | - C J M de Groot
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Thangaratinam
- Women's Health Research Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
| | - B W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Pietrzyk S, Fortuna T, Królikowska K, Rogozińska E, Łabanowska M, Kurdziel M. Effect of mineral elements on physicochemical properties of oxidised starches and generation of free radicals. Carbohydr Polym 2013; 97:343-51. [PMID: 23911455 DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.04.077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2012] [Revised: 03/28/2013] [Accepted: 04/24/2013] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
39
|
Thangaratinam S, Rogozińska E, Jolly K, Glinkowski S, Duda W, Borowiack E, Roseboom T, Tomlinson J, Walczak J, Kunz R, Mol BW, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS. Interventions to reduce or prevent obesity in pregnant women: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16:iii-iv, 1-191. [PMID: 22814301 DOI: 10.3310/hta16310] [Citation(s) in RCA: 142] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Around 50% of women of childbearing age are either overweight [body mass index (BMI) 25-29.9 kg/m(2)] or obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)). The antenatal period provides an opportunity to manage weight in pregnancy. This has the potential to reduce maternal and fetal complications associated with excess weight gain and obesity. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of dietary and lifestyle interventions in reducing or preventing obesity in pregnancy and to assess the beneficial and adverse effects of the interventions on obstetric, fetal and neonatal outcomes. DATA SOURCES Major electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and Science Citation Index were searched (1950 until March 2011) to identify relevant citations. Language restrictions were not applied. REVIEW METHODS Systematic reviews of the effectiveness and harm of the interventions were carried out using a methodology in line with current recommendations. Studies that evaluated any dietary, physical activity or mixed approach intervention with the potential to influence weight change in pregnancy were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using accepted contemporary standards. Results were summarised as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. Continuous data were summarised as mean difference (MD) with standard deviation. The quality of the overall evidence synthesised for each outcome was summarised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology and reported graphically as a two-dimensional chart. RESULTS A total of 88 studies (40 randomised and 48 non-randomised and observational studies, involving 182,139 women) evaluated the effect of weight management interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes. Twenty-six studies involving 468,858 women reported the adverse effect of the interventions. Meta-analysis of 30 RCTs (4503 women) showed a reduction in weight gain in the intervention group of 0.97 kg compared with the control group (95% CI -1.60 kg to -0.34 kg; p = 0.003). Weight management interventions overall in pregnancy resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92; p = 0.008) and shoulder dystocia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.70; p = 0.02). Dietary interventions in pregnancy resulted in a significant decrease in the risk of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; p = 0.0009), gestational hypertension (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; p = 0.03) and preterm birth (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.96; p = 0.03) and showed a trend in reducing the incidence of gestational diabetes (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.03). There were no differences in the incidence of small-for-gestational-age infants between the groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29). There were no significant maternal or fetal adverse effects observed for the interventions in the included trials. The overall strength of evidence for weight gain in pregnancy and birthweight was moderate for all interventions considered together. There was high-quality evidence for small-for-gestational-age infants as an outcome. The quality of evidence for all interventions on pregnancy outcomes was very low to moderate. The quality of evidence for all adverse outcomes was very low. LIMITATIONS The included studies varied in the reporting of population, intensity, type and frequency of intervention and patient complience, limiting the interpretation of the findings. There was significant heterogeneity for the beneficial effect of diet on gestational weight gain. CONCLUSIONS Interventions in pregnancy to manage weight result in a significant reduction in weight gain in pregnancy (evidence quality was moderate). Dietary interventions are the most effective type of intervention in pregnancy in reducing gestational weight gain and the risks of pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension and shoulder dystocia. There is no evidence of harm as a result of the dietary and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy. Individual patient data meta-analysis is needed to provide robust evidence on the differential effect of intervention in various groups based on BMI, age, parity, socioeconomic status and medical conditions in pregnancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Thangaratinam
- Women's Health Research Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
|
41
|
Korczowski R, Rogozińska E. [Acyclovir in the treatment of viral complications in patients with leukemia]. Pol Tyg Lek 1985; 40:171-3. [PMID: 3856833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
|
42
|
Głowniak C, Bochenek W, Rogozińska E. [Fascioliasis as a new parasitological and medical problem in the light of laboratory studies]. Wiad Lek 1983; 36:725-32. [PMID: 6613122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
|