Mixing nulliparous and multiparous women in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention is debatable: evidence from a systematic review.

Abstract

Nulliparity is a major risk factor of preeclampsia investigated in numerous trials of its prevention. We aimed to assess whether these trials considered nulliparity in subject selection or analysis of results. 01 April 2013 search of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. 01 April 2013 search of trials registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. Randomised controlled trials and metaanalyses of preeclampsia prevention with no restriction to period of publication or language. Metaanalyses were selected to fully identify relevant trials. One reader appraised each selected article/registered protocol using a pretested, standardized data abstraction form developed in a pilot test. For each article, he recorded whether both nulliparous and multiparous were included and, in case of mixed populations, whether randomisation was stratified, and whether subgroup analyses had been reported. For registered protocols, he only assessed whether it was planned to include mixed populations. 88 randomised controlled trials were identified, representing 83,396 included women. In 58 of the 88 articles identified (65.9%), preeclampsia was the primary outcome. In 31 of these (53.4%), the investigation combined nulliparous and multiparous women; only two reports in 31 (6.5%) stated that randomisation was stratified on parity and only four (12.9%) described a subgroup analysis by parity. Of the 30 registered trials, 20 (66.6%) planned to include both nulliparous and multiparous women. Parity is largely ignored in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention, which raises difficulties in interpreting the results.