The methodology for developing a prospective meta-analysis in the family planning community

David K Turok, Eve Espey, Alison B Edelman, Pamela S Lotke, Eva H Lathrop, Stephanie B Teal, Janet C Jacobson, Sara E Simonsen, Kenneth F Schulz, David K Turok, Eve Espey, Alison B Edelman, Pamela S Lotke, Eva H Lathrop, Stephanie B Teal, Janet C Jacobson, Sara E Simonsen, Kenneth F Schulz

Abstract

Background: Prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is a collaborative research design in which individual sites perform randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pool the data for meta-analysis. Members of the PMA collaboration agree upon specific research interventions and outcome measures, ideally before initiation but at least prior to any individual trial publishing results. This allows for uniform reporting of primary and secondary outcomes. With this approach, heterogeneity among trials contributing data for the final meta-analysis is minimized while each site maintains the freedom to design a specific trial. This paper describes the process of creating a PMA collaboration to evaluate the impact of misoprostol on ease of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in nulliparous women.

Methods: After the principal investigator developed a preliminary PMA protocol, he identified potential collaborating investigators at other sites. One site already had a trial underway and another site was in the planning stages of a trial meeting PMA requirements. Investigators at six sites joined the PMA collaborative. Each site committed to enroll subjects to meet a pre-determined total sample size. A final common research plan and site responsibilities were developed and agreed upon through email and face-to-face meetings. Each site committed to contribute individual patient data to the PMA collaboration, and these data will be analyzed and prepared as a multi-site publication. Individual sites retain the ability to analyze and publish their site's independent findings.

Results: All six sites have obtained Institutional Review Board approval and each has obtained individual funding to meet the needs of that site's study. Sites have shared resources including study protocols and consents to decrease costs and improve study flow. This PMA protocol is registered with the Cochrane Collaboration and data will be analyzed according to Cochrane standards for meta-analysis.

Conclusions: PMA is a novel research method that improves meta-analysis by including several study sites, establishing uniform reporting of specific outcomes, and yet allowing some independence on the part of individual sites with respect to the conduct of research. The inclusion of several sites increases statistical power to address important clinical questions. Compared to multi-center trials, PMA methodology encourages collaboration, aids in the development of new investigators, decreases study costs, and decreases time to publication.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00613366, NCT00886834, NCT01001897, NCT01147497 and NCT01307111.

References

    1. Jones AP. et al.Meta-analysis of individual patient data versus aggregate data from longitudinal clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2009;6(1):16–27. doi: 10.1177/1740774508100984.
    1. Reade MC. et al.Prospective meta-analysis using individual patient data in intensive care medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(1):11–21. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1650-x.
    1. Ghersi D. "Prospective Meta-Analysis Methods Group". The Cochrane Collaboration; 2002.
    1. Protocol for a prospective collaborative overview of all current and planned randomized trials of cholesterol treatment regimens. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75(16):1130–4.
    1. Protocol for prospective collaborative overviews of major randomized trials of blood-pressure-lowering treatments. World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. J Hypertens. 1998;16(2):127–37.
    1. Margitic SE. et al.Hospital Outcomes Project for the Elderly (HOPE): rationale and design for a prospective pooled analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41(3):258–67.
    1. Margitic SE. et al.Lessons learned from a prospective meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43(4):435–9.
    1. Schunkert H. et al.Repeated replication and a prospective meta-analysis of the association between chromosome 9p21.3 and coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2008;117(13):1675–84. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.730614.
    1. Sims AM. et al.Prospective meta-analysis of interleukin 1 gene complex polymorphisms confirms associations with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(9):1305–9.
    1. Writer WD. et al.Neonatal outcome and mode of delivery after epidural analgesia for labour with ropivacaine and bupivacaine: a prospective meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 1998;81(5):713–7.
    1. Valsecchi MG, Masera G. A new challenge in clinical research in childhood ALL: the prospective meta-analysis strategy for intergroup collaboration. Ann Oncol. 1996;7(10):1005–8.
    1. Askie L. Email communication. 2011.
    1. Baigent C. et al.Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;366(9493):1267–78.
    1. Turok DK, Simonsen SE, Schulz KF. Misoprostol for cervical priming prior to IUD insertion in nulliparous women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010. [cited 2011 April 2, 2011];
    1. Meckstroth KR. et al.Misoprostol administered by epithelial routes: Drug absorption and uterine response. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2006;108(3 Pt 1):582–90.
    1. Tang OS. et al.Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Human Reproduction. 2002;17(2):332–6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.2.332.
    1. Use of the Mirena™ LNG-IUS and Paragard™ CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women: Release date 15 December 2009 SFP Guideline 20092. Contraception. 2010;81(5):367–371.
    1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 392, December 2007. Intrauterine device and adolescents. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(6):1493–5. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000291575.93944.1a.
    1. ACOG practice bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 59, January 2005. Intrauterine device. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(1):223–32. doi: 10.1097/00006250-200501000-00060.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. 2010. [webpage] [cited 2010 August 9];
    1. World Health Organization. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. 4. 2009. [cited 2010 August 9];
    1. Allen RH. et al.Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:CD007373.
    1. Allen RH, Goldberg AB. Cervical dilation before first-trimester surgical abortion (< 14 weeks' gestation). SFP Guideline 20071. Contraception. 2007;76(2):139–56.
    1. Hayes JL, Fox MC. Cervical dilation in second-trimester abortion. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;52(2):171–8. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181a2b3cd.
    1. Batukan C. et al.Cervical ripening before operative hysteroscopy in premenopausal women: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of vaginal and oral misoprostol. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(4):966–73. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.099.
    1. Oppegaard KS. et al.Comparison of self-administered vaginal misoprostol versus placebo for cervical ripening prior to operative hysteroscopy using a sequential trial design. BJOG. 2008;115(5):663. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01628.x. e1-9.
    1. Ngai SW. et al.Oral misoprostol for cervical priming in non-pregnant women. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(11):2373–5. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.11.2373.
    1. Saav I. et al.Cervical priming with sublingual misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(10):2647–52. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem244.
    1. Oskari H. et al.Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on the effect of misoprostol on ease of consecutive insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception. 2010;81(6):481–486. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.01.020.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials. 2010;11:32. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-32.
    1. Higgins J, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane book series. Chichester, West Sussex; Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2008. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel