| Ref ID | 201 |
| First Author | M. Prior |
| Journal | BJOG: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/1471-0528.14506?download=true |
| Keywords |
• Subgroup • Pre-specification • Endocrinology |
| Problem(s) |
• Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To compare the findings all progestogen trials and systematic reviews with those of trials with pre-registered primary outcomes which avoided selective outcome reporting. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | Nineteen of the included 29 meta-analyses concluded that progestogens were effective which the authors suggest was due to inadvertant p-hacking. When systematic reviews evaluated only the primary outcomes from pre-registered double-blind trials with analysis, progestogen agents in pregnancy were found to be ineffective (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94–1.07). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 29 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 2467 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | Re-analysis using only the registered primary outcomes of the included trials. |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | When systematic reviews evaluated only the primary outcomes from pre-registered double-blind trials with analysis, progestogen agents in pregnancy were found to be ineffective (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94–1.07). |