MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126651149 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-68

Comparative safety of anti-epileptic drugs among infants and children exposed in utero or during breastfeeding: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2014· review· en· W2126651149 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrea C. Tricco, Elise Cogo, Veroniki A Angeliki, Charlene Soobiah, Brian Hutton, David Moher, Yaron Finkelstein, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of CalgaryCanada Research ChairsInstitute for Work & HealthOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingObservational studyRandomized controlled trialPopulationSystematic reviewMEDLINEPediatricsMeta-analysisEpilepsyPsychiatryFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy affects about 1% of the general population. Anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) prevent or terminate seizures in individuals with epilepsy. Pregnant women with epilepsy may continue taking AEDs. Many of these agents cross the placenta and increase the risk of major congenital malformations, early cognitive and developmental delays, and infant mortality. We aim to evaluate the comparative safety of AEDs approved for chronic use in Canada when administered to pregnant and breastfeeding women and the effects on their infants and children through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS: Studies examining the effects of AEDs administered to pregnant and breastfeeding women regardless of indication (e.g., epilepsy, migraine, pain, psychiatric disorders) on their infants and children will be included. We will include randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, controlled before-after, interrupted time series, cohort, registry, and case-control studies. The main literature search will be executed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will seek unpublished literature through searches of trial protocol registries and conference abstracts. The literature search results screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal will be performed by two individuals, independently. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The risk of bias of experimental and quasi-experimental studies will be appraised using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Risk-of-Bias tool, methodological quality of observational studies will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and quality of reporting of safety outcomes will be conducted using the McMaster Quality Assessment Scale of Harms (McHarm) tool. If feasible and appropriate, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis will be considered for outcomes that fulfill network meta-analysis assumptions.The primary outcome is major congenital malformations (overall and by specific types), while secondary outcomes include fetal loss/miscarriage, minor congenital malformations (overall and by specific types), cognitive development, psychomotor development, small for gestational age, preterm delivery, and neonatal seizures. DISCUSSION: Our systematic review will address safety concerns regarding the use of AEDs during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Our results will be useful to healthcare providers, policy-makers, and women of childbearing age who are taking anti-epileptic medications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014008925.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0580.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207