Meta-analysis of aspirin for the prevention of preeclampsia: Do the main randomized controlled trials support an association between low-dose aspirin and a reduced risk of developing preeclampsia? [4]

Clinics

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 179-182

  Pereira, Tiago V ^a   Rudnicki, Martina ^a   Soler, Júlia M P ^a   Krieger, José E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646407855     PISSN: 18075932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322006000200016     Document Type: Letter

References (17)

1. Ruano R, Fontes RS, Zugaib M. Prevention of preeclampsia with lowdose aspirin- a systematic review and meta-analysis of the main randomized controlled trials. Clinics. 2005;60(5):407-14.
2. Mantel N, Haenszel WH. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of diseases. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:719-48.
3. Brown H, Prescott R. Applied Mixed Models in Medicine. New York: Wiley; 2001.
4. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88.
5. Villar J, Mackey ME, Carroli G, Donner A. Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects models. Stat Med. 2001;20:3635-47.
6. Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
7. Takkouche B, Cadarso-Suarez C, Spiegelman D. Evaluation of old and new tests of heterogeneity in epidemiologic meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:206-15.
8. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-34.
9. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2000;8:275-92.
10. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1998;17:841-56.
11. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-58.
12. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18:2693-708.
13. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in metaanalyses. Ann Intern Med . 2001;135:982-9.
14. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-12.
15. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088-101.
16. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, Olkin I. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2003;22:2113-26.
17. The PARIS Collaboration. Antiplatelet agents for prevention of preeclampsia and its consequences: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2005;5:7.