Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 1;11:135. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-01978-5

Table 3.

Summary of findings for medications to prevent superimposed preeclampsia

Patient or population: Pregnant women at any gestational age at high risk of developing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy
Settings: Hospital setting
Intervention: Antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants, antioxidants, calcium, nitric oxide, and their combinations
Comparator: Placebo or no treatment
Outcome: Superimposed preeclampsia
Total studies: 4 RCTs
Total participants: 6,342
Direct estimates
RR (95% CI)
Certainty of evidence Indirect estimates
RR (95% CI)
Certainty of evidence Network estimates
RR (95% CI)
[95% PrI]
Certainty of evidence SUCRA Commentsa
Antiplatelets (3 RCTs; 6,298 participants) 0.72 (0.46 to 1.14)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowb,c

Not estimable

0.72 (0.46 to 1.14)

[0.04 to 14.21]

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowb,c

69.0% There was no evidence of inconsistency for global inconsistency test (P = 0.165)
Antioxidants (1 RCT; 44 participants) 0.67 (0.12 to 3.61)

⊕⊝⊝⊝

Very lowd,e

Not estimable

0.67 (0.12 to 3.61)

[< 0.001 to 37900]

⊕⊝⊝⊝

Very lowd,e

60.6%

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect

Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate

The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)

CI Confidence interval, PrI Prediction interval, RR Relative risk

aDias’s inconsistency tests of the node splitting not estimable

bWe downgraded (1) level for serious limitations in study design due to most of the studies being at unclear risk of bias

cWe downgraded (1) level for serious imprecision due to wide confidence interval

dWe downgraded (2) level for very serious limitations in study design due to most of the studies being at high risk of bias

eWe downgraded (2) level for very serious imprecision due to wide confidence interval and small number of events and sample size