MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215218772 · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01849-5

Short-term outcomes of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for fetal growth restriction: a study protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis, aggregate meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

2021· review· en· W3215218772 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Liauw, Katie Groom, Wessel Ganzevoort, Christian Gluud, Christopher J. D. McKinlay, Andrew Sharp, Laura K. Mackay, Chirag Kariya, Kenneth Lim, Peter von Dadelszen, Jacqueline Limpens, Janus Christian Jakobsen, François Audibert, Žarko Alfirević, Philip N. Baker, Emmanuel Bujold, Youkee Chung, Christine Cornforth, Sanne J. Gordijn, Edward Johnstone, Louise C. Kenny, Tang Lee, Larry Li, Laura A. Magee, Lesley McCowan, Ben W. Mol, Wes Onland, Aris T. Papageorghiou, Anouk Pels

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialRandom effects modelTerm (time)Internal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early onset fetal growth restriction secondary to placental insufficiency can lead to severe maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Pre-clinical studies and a few small randomised clinical trials have suggested that phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors may have protective effects against placental insufficiency in this context; however, robust evidence is lacking. The STRIDER Consortium conducted four randomised trials to investigate the use of a PDE-5 inhibitor, sildenafil, for the treatment of early onset fetal growth restriction. We present a protocol for the pre-planned systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis, aggregate meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of these and other eligible trials. The main objective of this study will be to evaluate the effects of PDE-5 inhibitors on neonatal morbidity compared with placebo or no intervention among pregnancies with fetal growth restriction. METHODS: We will search the following electronic databases with no language or date restrictions: OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and the clinical trial registers Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We will identify randomised trials of PDE-5 inhibitors in singleton pregnancies with growth restriction. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Our primary outcome will be infant survival without evidence of serious adverse neonatal outcome. Secondary outcomes will include gestational age at birth and birth weight z-scores. We will assess bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We will conduct aggregate meta-analysis using fixed and random effects models, Trial Sequential Analysis, and individual participant data meta-analysis using one- and two-stage approaches. The certainty of evidence will be assessed with GRADE. DISCUSSION: This pre-defined protocol will minimise bias during analysis and interpretation of results, toward the goal of providing robust evidence regarding the use of PDE-5 inhibitors for the treatment of early onset fetal growth restriction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42017069688).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.033
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.005

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 head0.595
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.087 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207