Table 14Clinical evidence profile. Comparison 10. Amlodipine versus aspirin

Quality assessmentNumber of patientsEffectQualityImportance
Number of studiesDesignRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsAmlodipineAspirinRelative (95% CI)Absolute
Stillbirth
1 (Vigil de Gracia 2014)randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

0/20

(0%)

1/19

(5.3%)

RR 0.32 (0.01 to 7.35)36 fewer per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 334 more)VERY LOWCRITICAL
Neonatal death
1 (Vigil de Gracia 2014)randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessno serious imprecisionnone

0/20

(0%)

0/19

(0%)

not calculablenot calculableMODERATECRITICAL
Small-for-gestational age
1 (Vigil de Gracia 2014)randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

2/20

(10%)

2/19

(10.5%)

RR 0.95 (0.15 to 6.08)5 fewer per 1000 (from 89 fewer to 535 more)VERY LOWCRITICAL
Birth weight (grams) (Better indicated by higher values)
1 (Vigil de Gracia 2014)randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessserious3none2019-MD 63 lower (467.79 lower to 341.79 higher)LOWIMPORTANT
Preterm birth (weeks not specified)
1 (Vigil de Gracia 2014)randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

3/20

(15%)

1/19

(5.3%)

RR 2.85 (0.32 to 25.07)97 more per 1000 (from 36 fewer to 1000 more)VERY LOWIMPORTANT
Severe hypertension
1 (Vigil de Gracia 2014)randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

7/20

(35%)

6/19

(31.6%)

RR 1.11 (0.45 to 2.70)35 more per 1000 (from 174 fewer to 537 more)VERY LOWCRITICAL
Placental abruption
1 (Vigil de Gracia 2014)randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

1/20

(5%)

0/19

(0%)

RR 2.86 (0.12 to 66.11)4-VERY LOWIMPORTANT
Mode of birth (caesarean section)
1 (Vigil de Gracia 2014)randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none

12/20

(60%)

10/19

(52.6%)

RR 1.14 (0.65 to 1.99)74 more per 1000 (from 184 fewer to 521 more)VERY LOWIMPORTANT
1

The quality of the evidence was downgraded by 1 level due to a high risk of performance and selection bias and an unclear risk of selective reporting

2

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

3

The quality of the evidence was downgraded by 1 level as the 95% CI crossed 1 default MID threshold (740 × +/− 0.5= +/− 370)

4

The corresponding absolute risk was not calculated as there were no events reported in the control arm.

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.