Methods | Randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study. | |
Participants | 74 pregnant women consented to participate; 59 women completed the protocol | |
Interventions | Treatment group: vitamin B6 - 25 mg tablets every 8 hours for 72 hours Placebo: identical appearing tablets to be taken using the same regimen |
|
Outcomes | Severity of nausea: marked on 10 cm unmarked Visual Analogue Scale: 0 as no nausea and 10 as worst possible nausea; recorded by women 4 times daily (am, noon, pm, bedtime) for the 3 days of treatment Number of episodes of emesis per 24 hours recorded daily for 3 days |
|
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Item | Authors’ judgement | Description |
Adequate sequence generation? | Yes | Randomised by a table of numbers. |
Allocation concealment? | Unclear | Not described. |
Blinding? Change in grade of nausea or vomiting at second visit compared to first |
Yes | All individuals involved in the study except for the pharmacist were blinded to the nature of the medication It is not clear at what stage group allocation became known. |
Incomplete outcome data addressed? Change in grade of nausea or vomiting at second visit compared to first |
Unclear | 20.2% drop-out rate high, not clear which group attrition was in |
Free of selective reporting? | Unclear | After data collection but before data analysis, the authors say that they arbitrarily divided the patients into 2 subgroups according to the severity of their nausea - patients with a nausea score of greater than 7 were in the severe nausea group and those with scores less than or equal to 7 were categorised in the mild to moderate subgroup and these 2 groups were then compared. As the results showed that there was a significant improvement in the severe nausea subgroup who received the intervention, bias in the arbitrary post hoc cut-off for severity subgroup bias cannot be ruled out Unclear reporting - average of averages, mean change from baseline (standard error of the difference in the means) etc |
Free of other bias? | Yes |