Investigating the quality, trustworthiness and integrity of published randomized trials on phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for the treatment of fetal growth restriction and their impact on study findings: protocol for a systematic review with aggregate data meta-analysis and data integrity assessments
Bruins, M. E.; Bordewijk, E. M.; Pels, A.; Papageorghiou, A. T.; Gordijn, S. J.; Jakobsen, J. C.; Wilkinson, J. D.; Mol, B. W.; Groom, K. M.; Ganzevoort, W.
Show abstract
BackgroundPhosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors have been proposed as a potential in-utero treatment to improve uteroplacental perfusion in pregnancies with fetal growth restriction. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown conflicting results, with concerns about the integrity of several trials. ObjectiveThis protocol outlines a systematic review and aggregate data meta-analysis of RCTs investigating the short-term effects of PDE-5 inhibitors versus placebo or no treatment in pregnancies affected by FGR. We will assess the trustworthiness and scientific integrity of included trials and evaluate their impact on pooled outcomes. MethodsEligible trials were identified through a literature search. Primary outcome is mortality (stillbirth, neonatal or infant death). Secondary outcomes include severe neonatal morbidities and maternal preeclampsia. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Trustworthiness will be evaluated using the INSPECT-SR tool, the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trustworthiness Screening Tool and additional statistical analyses. In the aggregate data meta-analysis, trials will be classified into subgroups based on the results from the INSPECT-SR tool. If concerns about trial conduct or reporting arise, authors will be contacted; unresolved issues may be referred to the journal. DiscussionThis review will critically assess the trustworthiness of randomized trials on PDE-5 inhibitors for FGR and summarize the available evidence. This protocol is written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines1. Corresponding PRISMA-P items are indicated in brackets following each section heading.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for postpartum hypogalactia: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 96%
- Transforming Obesity Prevention for CHILDren (TOPCHILD) Collaboration: protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis of behavioural interventions for the prevention of early childhood obesity 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data 96%
- Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: a scoping review 95%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 and pregnancy: An umbrella review of clinical presentation, vertical transmission, and maternal and perinatal outcomes 94%
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 94%
- Protocol for a sequential, prospective meta-analysis to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pregnancy and postpartum periods 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials 95%
- Tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN): elaboration and examples 94%
- Evidence of unexplained discrepancies between planned and conducted statistical analyses: a review of randomized trials 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.