Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao BJOG An Internationa...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Article . 2006 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

The quality of randomised trials of tocolysis

Authors: Jim G Thornton;

The quality of randomised trials of tocolysis

Abstract

Tocolytic treatment of suspected preterm labour has been evaluated in at least 75 randomised controlled trials. These have been included in six Cochrane reviews. If the trials are poorly designed, such reviews may mislead or, at best, provide weaker evidence than those based on well‐designed ones. The objective of this study was to compare the quality of the trials included in the Cochrane reviews of tocolytic therapy. Trial group sizes; the methods used by each trial to avoid selection, performance, attrition, and detection bias; and evidence that the statistical analysis plan was prespecified were abstracted from each Cochrane review. Except where noted, the judgement of the Cochrane reviewers was used. The number of trials graded A (sealed envelopes or third‐party randomisation) for allocation concealment was as follows: beta‐agonists 5/16, magnesium sulphate 9/23, oxytocin receptor antagonists 6/6, cox inhibitors 12/13, calcium channel blockers 9/12, and nitric oxide donors 5/5. The number blinding the intervention was as follows: beta‐agonists 9/16, magnesium sulphate 2/23, oxytocin receptor antagonists 5/6, cox inhibitors 7/13, calcium channel blockers 0/12, and nitric oxide donors 1/5. The number reporting a sample size calculation was as follows: beta‐agonists 2/16, magnesium sulphate 3/23, oxytocin receptor antagonists 6/6, cox inhibitors 4/13, calcium channel blockers 4/12, and nitric oxide donors 1/5. The mean sample size of each treatment group was as follows: beta‐agonists 53, magnesium sulphate 41, oxytocin receptor antagonists 126, cox inhibitors 31, calcium channel blockers 43, and nitric oxide donors 46. Data on avoiding attrition bias (follow‐up rates) are difficult to summarise because there is no agreed standard for ‘complete follow up’. Data on avoiding detection bias (blinding of outcome assessments) appeared unreliable because reviewers reported this in different ways. In conclusion, the trials of oxytocin antagonists and beta‐agonists were of the highest quality. There remains considerable scope for bias in many of the trials included in the current Cochrane systematic reviews of tocolytics.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Quality Control, Obstetric Labor, Premature, Tocolytic Agents, Pregnancy, Tocolysis, Humans, Female, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    8
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
8
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!