This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (31)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Review  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Alert me on articles by topic

Rebecca DerSimonian, ScD; Richard J. Levine, MD

JAMA. 1999;282:664-670.

Context  A recent meta-analysis found calcium supplementation to be highly effective in preventing preeclampsia but a large National Institutes of Health trial (Calcium for Preeclampsia Prevention [CPEP]) found no risk reduction due to calcium in healthy nulliparous women.

Objectives  To resolve discrepancies between the results of the meta-analysis and the CPEP trial and to assess the role of effect heterogeneity in the discrepancies.

Data Sources  Literature search of English-language articles published prior to July 10, 1997, the date of publication of the CPEP trial, using MEDLINE and by a manual search of bibliographies of published articles.

Study Selection  Trials were included if they reported data on preeclampsia and calcium supplementation. Fourteen trials were systematically evaluated for differences in study design and patient populations. One trial was excluded because its results were reported after publication of the major CPEP results.

Data Extraction  The sample size and number of subjects who developed preeclampsia in the calcium supplementation group vs a control group were recorded and analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Each author independently extracted the data.

Data Synthesis  Substantial heterogeneity existed across trials (P=.001). After stratifying studies by the presence of a placebo-controlled group and by high-risk and low-risk populations, the conclusions of the meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials enrolling a low-risk population (relative risk, 0.79; 99% confidence interval, 0.44-1.42; P=.30) were compatible with the conclusions of the CPEP trial that calcium supplementation does not prevent preeclampsia in healthy nulliparous women. In contrast, the data implied a strong beneficial calcium effect (relative risk, 0.19; 99% confidence interval, 0.08-0.46; P=.001) in healthy high-risk subject populations. However, only 225 women were analyzed and because of inconsistent data, these results remain equivocal.

Conclusions  Further studies are needed to establish the efficacy of calcium for preeclampsia prevention in healthy high-risk populations. A single summary measure does not adequately describe the findings of a meta-analysis when the observed effects in individual studies differ substantially. In such settings the primary focus should be to identify and incorporate pertinent covariates that reduce heterogeneity and allow for optimum treatment strategies.

Author Affiliations: Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention Research, National Institute of Child Health and Development, Bethesda, Md.

RELATED ARTICLE

August 18, 1999
JAMA. 1999;282(7):701-702.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Profound effect of study design factors on ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence of prevention studies: benchmarking the literature experience
Hurley
J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;61:1154-1161.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What the surgeon of tomorrow needs to know about evidence-based surgery.
Maier
Arch Surg 2006;141:317-323.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical trials studying pharmacotherapy and psychological treatments alone and together
Haythornthwaite
Neurology 2005;65:S20-S31.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-based Colloid Use in the Critically Ill: American Thoracic Society Consensus Statement
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2004;170:1247-1259.
FULL TEXT  

N-Acetylcysteine for the Prevention of Radiocontrast Induced Nephropathy: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Controlled Trials
Kshirsagar et al.
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2004;15:761-769.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Retreatment with interferon plus ribavirin of chronic hepatitis C non-responders to interferon monotherapy: a meta-analysis of individual patient data
Camma et al.
Gut 2002;51:864-869.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Enhancing Reviews of Psychological Treatments With Pediatric Populations: Thoughts on Next Steps
Drotar
J Pediatr Psychol 2002;27:167-176.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Way in Which Intervention Studies Have "Personality" and why it is Important to Meta-Analysis
Lipsey and Wilson
Eval Health Prof 2001;24:236-254.
ABSTRACT  

Methods for Exploring Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis
Song et al.
Eval Health Prof 2001;24:126-151.
ABSTRACT  

A Meta-analysis of Prospective Trials Comparing Percutaneous and Surgical Tracheostomy in Critically Ill Patients
Freeman et al.
Chest 2000;118:1412-1418.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Meta-Analysis of Thromboembolic Prophylaxis Following Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty
Freedman et al.
JBJS 2000;82:929-929.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Normal values of M mode echocardiographic measurements of more than 2000 healthy infants and children in central Europe
Kampmann et al.
Heart 2000;83:667-672.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Invited Commentaries on: Obstetric complications and Schizophrenia/affective psychoses
Waddington
Br. J. Psychiatry 2000;176:529-530.
FULL TEXT  

Aspirin Benefit Remains Elusive in Primary Stroke Prevention
Barnett and Eliasziw
Arch Neurol 2000;57:306-308.
FULL TEXT