Advertisement

Outcomes among participants vs nonparticipants of randomized trials during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      Abstract

      OBJECTIVE

      This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes among individuals who were eligible and approached for participation in a randomized controlled trial during pregnancy, comparing those who enrolled with those who declined participation.

      DATA SOURCES

      MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Ovid were searched from study inception to May 2022.

      STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

      This study included all obstetrical randomized controlled trials that reported clinical outcomes for both participants and nonparticipants.

      METHODS

      The primary outcome captured the presence of morbidity. It was a composite of the primary outcome of each study comparing the participant arm with the nonparticipant arm. If a primary outcome was not clearly defined, a surrogate was developed on the basis of the core outcomes for the clinical condition studied. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Subgroup analyses for relevant obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were performed. The summary comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals computed using random-effects meta-analysis with heterogeneity evaluated using the I2 statistic. A funnel plot was used to examine publication bias, and there was no asymmetry.

      RESULTS

      After reviewing more than 1100 abstracts, 17 obstetrical randomized controlled trials (103,610, with 26,293 participants and 77,317 nonparticipants) met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of note, 9 studies were not rated as high quality, primarily for failing to control for confounding factors. Trial interventions were categorized as antepartum (n=11), intrapartum (n=5), or postpartum (n=1). Overall, participants in obstetrical randomized controlled trials had no difference in outcomes compared with nonparticipants (n=17: odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–1.49; I2=90%). Moreover, there was no difference seen when only randomized controlled trials that reported a primary outcome were included (n=12: odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.38–0.1.49; I2=93%). In addition, there was no difference noted in the subgroup where the randomized controlled trial intervention was not available to nonparticipants (n=7: odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–1.85; I2=68%).

      CONCLUSION

      Pregnant individuals who agreed to participate in randomized controlled trials had no difference in outcomes compared with those who decline participation. Pregnant individuals should be provided with this reassuring information when offered to participate in a randomized controlled trial. Moreover, this information may improve patient recruitment into randomized controlled trials.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Alsan M
        • Wanamaker M
        • Hardeman RR.
        The Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis: a case study in peripheral trauma with implications for health professionals.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2020; 35: 322-325
        • Vist GE
        • Bryant D
        • Somerville L
        • Birminghem T
        • Oxman AD.
        Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; 2008MR000009
        • Nijjar SK
        • D'Amico MI
        • Wimalaweera NA
        • Cooper N
        • Zamora J
        • Khan KS
        Participation in clinical trials improves outcomes in women's health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BJOG. 2017; 124: 863-871
        • Stroup DF
        • Berlin JA
        • Morton SC
        • et al.
        Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.
        JAMA. 2000; 283: 2008-2012
      1. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta analyses; 2014.

        • Lo CK
        • Mertz D
        • Loeb M.
        Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14: 45https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-45
        • Islam MM
        • Iqbal U
        • Walther B
        • et al.
        Benzodiazepine use and risk of dementia in the elderly population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Neuroepidemiology. 2016; 47: 181-191
        • Abu Rmilah AA
        • Tahboub MA
        • Alkurashi AK
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy in patients with mitral stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2021; 33100765
        • Sterne JAC
        • Savović J
        • Page MJ
        • et al.
        RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898
        • Nicolaides KH
        • Brizot ML
        • Patel F
        • Snjders R.
        Comparison of chorion villus sampling and early amniocentesis for karyotyping in 1,492 singleton pregnancies.
        Fetal Diagn Ther. 1996; 11: 9-15
        • Cowchock FS
        • Reece EA
        • Balaban D
        • Branch DW
        • Plouffe L.
        Repeated fetal losses associated with antiphospholipid antibodies: a collaborative randomized trial comparing prednisone with low-dose heparin treatment.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 1318-1323
        • Hauth JC
        • Gilstrap 3rd, LC
        • Brekken AL
        • Hauth JM
        The effect of 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate on pregnancy outcome in an active-duty military population.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983; 146: 187-190
        • Welt SI
        • Dorminy 3rd, JH
        • Jelovsek FR
        • Crenshaw MC
        • Gall SA
        The effects of prophylactic management and therapeutics on hypertensive disease in pregnancy: preliminary studies.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1981; 57: 557-565
        • Kieler H
        • Hellberg D
        • Nilsson S
        • Waldenström U
        • Axelsson O.
        Pregnancy outcome among non-participants in a trial on ultrasound screening.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 11: 104-109
        • Kirke PN
        • Daly LE
        • Elwood JH.
        A randomised trial of low dose folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. The Irish Vitamin Study Group.
        Arch Dis Child. 1992; 67: 1442-1446
        • Nagel HT
        • Vandenbussche FP
        • Keirse MJ
        • et al.
        Amniocentesis before 14 completed weeks as an alternative to transabdominal chorionic villus sampling: a controlled trial with infant follow-up.
        Prenat Diagn. 1998; 18: 465-475
        • Chappell LC
        • Gurung V
        • Seed PT
        • et al.
        Ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo, and early term delivery versus expectant management, in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: semifactorial randomised clinical trial.
        BMJ. 2012; 344: e3799
        • Mitchell-Jones N
        • Farren JA
        • Tobias A
        • Bourne T
        • Bottomley C
        Ambulatory versus inpatient management of severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a randomised control trial with patient preference arm.
        BMJ Open. 2017; 7e017566
        • van Wyk L
        • Boers KE
        • Gordijn SJ
        • et al.
        Perinatal death in a term fetal growth restriction randomized controlled trial: the paradox of prior risk and consent.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020; 100239
        • Crowther CA
        • Dodd JM
        • Hiller JE
        • Haslam RR
        • Robinson JS
        Birth After Caesarean Study Group. Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial.
        PLoS Med. 2012; 9e1001192
        • Koopmans CM
        • Bijlenga D
        • Groen H
        • et al.
        Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2009; 374: 979-988
        • West J
        • Wright J
        • Tuffnell D
        • Jankowicz D
        • West R.
        Do clinical trials improve quality of care? A comparison of clinical processes and outcomes in patients in a clinical trial and similar patients outside a trial where both groups are managed according to a strict protocol.
        Qual Saf Health Care. 2005; 14: 175-178
        • Chauhan SP
        • Rutherford SE
        • Hess LW
        • Morrison JC.
        Prophylactic intrapartum amnioinfusion for patients with oligohydramnios. A prospective randomized study.
        J Reprod Med. 1992; 37: 817-820
        • Molkenboer JF
        • Reijners EP
        • Nijhuis JG
        • Roumen FJ.
        Moderate neonatal morbidity after vaginal term breech delivery.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 16: 357-361
        • Neldam S
        • Osler M
        • Hansen PK
        • Nim J
        • Smith SF
        • Hertel J.
        Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring in a combined low- and high-risk population: a controlled clinical trial.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1986; 23: 1-11
        • Hoddinott P
        • Britten J
        • Prescott GJ
        • Tappin D
        • Ludbrook A
        • Godden DJ.
        Effectiveness of policy to provide breastfeeding groups (BIG) for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.
        BMJ. 2009; 338: a3026
        • Cozzi GD
        • Jauk VC
        • Szychowski JM
        • Tita AT
        • Battarbee AN
        • Subramaniam A.
        Participation in obstetric studies is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 226: S773-S774https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1269
        • Madan A
        • Tracy S
        • Reid R
        • Henry A.
        Recruitment difficulties in obstetric trials: a case study and review.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 54: 546-552
        • Sherrell HC
        • Dunn LTB
        • Horey D
        • Flenady V
        • Kumar S.
        Women's and clinician's acceptability of participation in a hypothetical obstetric randomized controlled trial: a qualitative survey.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021; ([Epub ahead of print])