- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
- Inadvertent P-hacking among trials and systematic reviews of the effect of progestogens in pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analysis
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 |
Pre-specification Subgroup Endocrinology |
Problem(s) |
Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
Number of systematic reviews included | 29 |
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). |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Yes |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |