Table 5Clinical evidence profile. Comparison 1. Induction of labour versus expectant management

Quality assessmentNumber of patientsEffectQualityImportance
Number of studiesDesignRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsInduction of labourExpectant managementRelative (95% CI)Absolute
Perinatal mortality
1 (Hamed 2014)randomised trialsvery serious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

2/38

(5.3%)

1/38

(2.6%)

RR 2 (0.19 to 21.14)26 more per 1000 (from 21 fewer to 530 more)VERY LOWCRITICAL
Birth weight (grams) (Better indicated by higher values)
1 (Hamed 2014)randomised trialsvery serious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionnone3838-MD 400 lower (669.79 to 130.21 lower)LOWIMPORTANT
Gestational age at birth (weeks) (Better indicated by higher values)
1 (Hamed 2014)randomised trialsvery serious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious3none3838-MD 2.40 lower (3.34 to 1.46 lower)VERY LOWIMPORTANT
Preterm birth (number of weeks were not reported)
1 (Hamed 2014)randomised trialsvery serious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

10/38

(26.3%)

12/38

(31.6%)

RR 0.83 (0.41 to 1.69)54 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 218 more)VERY LOWIMPORTANT
Admission to neonatal unit
1 (Hamed 2014)randomised trialsvery serious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious4none

12/38

(31.6%)

3/38

(7.9%)

RR 4.00 (1.23 to 13.05)237 more per 1000 (from 18 more to 951 more)VERY LOWIMPORTANT
Severe hypertension
1 (Hamed 2014)randomised trialsvery serious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

5/38

(13.2%)

3/38

(7.9%)

RR 1.67 (0.43 to 6.49)53 more per 1000 (from 45 fewer to 433 more)VERY LOWCRITICAL
Superimposed pre-eclampsia
1 (Hamed 2014)randomised trialsvery serious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

12/38

(31.6%)

13/38

(34.2%)

RR 0.92 (0.49 to 1.76)27 fewer per 1000 (from 174 fewer to 260 more)VERY LOWIMPORTANT
Placental abruption
1 (Hamed 2014)randomised trialsvery serious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

3/38

(7.9%)

3/38

(7.9%)

RR 1.00 (0.22 to 4.65)0 fewer per 1000 (from 62 fewer to 288 more)VERY LOWIMPORTANT
1

The quality of the evidence was downgraded by two levels due to unclear risk of allocation concealment, performance and selection bias, and selective reporting

2

The quality of the evidence was downgraded by two levels as the 95% CI crossed 2 default MID thresholds (0.8 and 1.25)

3

The quality of the evidence was downgraded by one level as the 95% CI crossed 1 MID threshold (3.9 × +/− 0.5 = +/− 1.95)

4

The quality of the evidence was downgraded by one level as the 95% CI crossed 1 default MID threshold (1.25)

From: Evidence review for interventions for chronic hypertension

Cover of Evidence review for interventions for chronic hypertension
Evidence review for interventions for chronic hypertension: Hypertension in pregnancy: diagnosis and management: Evidence review A.
NICE Guideline, No. 133.
National Guideline Alliance (UK).
Copyright © NICE 2019.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.