ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations regarding progestogen supplementation for threatened and recurrent miscarriage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of progestogens for these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials up to October 6, 2023 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing progestogen supplementation to placebo or no treatment for pregnant women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. We assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 15 RCTs (6616 pregnancies) reporting on threatened or recurrent miscarriage, 12 (5610 pregnancies) reported on threatened miscarriage with or without a prior history of miscarriage. Results indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.10, absolute increase 3.1%, moderate certainty). Of these RCTs, three (1973 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage with a prior history of miscarriage indicated that progesterone possibly increases live births (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.97-1.16, absolute increase 4.4%; low certainty), while four (2540 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage and no prior miscarriage left the effect very uncertain (RR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10, absolute increase 1.7%; very low certainty). Three trials reporting on 1006 patients with a history of two or more prior miscarriages indicated progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.19, absolute increase 5.7%, moderate certainty). Six RCTs that reported on 2979 patients with at least one prior miscarriage indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.13, absolute increase 5.0%; moderate certainty). Progesterone probably has little or no effect on congenital anomalies (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.76-1.48, absolute increase 0.1%; moderate certainty), and other serious adverse pregnancy events (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.83-1.40, absolute increase 0.2%, moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In women at increased risk of pregnancy loss, progestogens probably increase live births without increasing adverse maternal and neonatal events. It remains possible that the benefit is restricted to those with prior miscarriages.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical evaluation of Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis, with a particular focus on its application to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the field of rehabilitation. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a methodological review that encompassed electronic and manual search strategies to identify relevant studies. Our selection process involved two independent reviewers who initially screened titles and abstracts and subsequently performed full-text screening based on established eligibility criteria. Additionally, we included studies from manual searches that were already cataloged within the first author's personal database. The findings are synthesized through a narrative approach, covering fundamental aspects of ITT, including its definition, common misconceptions, advantages, disadvantages, and key recommendations. Notably, the health literature offers a variety of definitions for ITT, which can lead to misinterpretations and inappropriate application when analyzing RCT results, potentially resulting in misleading findings with significant implications for healthcare decision-making. Authors should clearly report the specific ITT definition used in their analysis, provide details on participant dropouts, and explain upon their approach to managing missing data. Adherence to reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for RCTs, is essential to standardize ITT information, ensuring the delivery of accurate and informative results for healthcare decision-making.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of reducing saturated fat or fatty foods, or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes in adults. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and references of included studies for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in adults published in the past 10 years. Eligible reviews investigated reducing saturated fat or fatty foods or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using, for example, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. We assessed the quality of SRMAs using a modified version of AMSTAR-2. Results were summarized as absolute estimates of effect together with the certainty of effects using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: We included 17 SRMAs (13 reviews of observational studies with follow-up 1 to 34 years; 4 reviews of RCTs with follow-up 1 to 17 years). The quality of two-thirds of the SRMAs was critically low to moderate; the main limitations included deficient reporting of study selection, absolute effect estimates, sources of funding, and a priori subgroups to explore heterogeneity. Our included reviews reported > 100 estimates of effect across 11 critically important cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes. High quality SRMAs consistently and predominantly reported low to very low certainty evidence that reducing or replacing saturated fat was associated with a very small risk reduction in cancer and cardiometabolic endpoints. The risk reductions where approximately divided, some being statistically significant and some being not statistically significant. However, based on 2 moderate to high quality reviews, we found moderate certainty evidence for a small but important effect that was statistically significant for two outcomes (total mortality events [20 fewer events per 1000 followed] and combined cardiovascular events [16 fewer per 1000 followed]). Conversely, 4 moderate to high quality reviews showed very small effects on total mortality, with 3 of these reviews showing non-statistically significant mortality effects. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews investigating the impact of SFA on mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes almost universally suggest very small absolute changes in risk, and the data is based primarily on low and very low certainty evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020172141.
