Here's the [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20664402]PubMed abstract[/url].

CONCLUSION: Low-dose aspirin initiated in early pregnancy is an efficient method of reducing the incidence of preeclampsia and IUGR.

This is a meta-analysis of a bunch of studies, so the argument will now move to the quality of the individual studies that make up this meta-analysis. :)

No problem. The saddest thing of all that they need to educate more women on this condition. Anything that can do is my pleasure. When I log in here I feel like I am not alone.




quote:Originally posted by riehlism

The first link Lisette provided does site:

Prevention of Preeclampsia and Intrauterine Growth Restriction With Aspirin Started in Early Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis
Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:402-414.

So it looks like the most recent issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal. If you were trying to find the actual literature you can find this on PubMed.

The meta-analysis is the strongest type of research in the heirarchy of the types of research articles. The gold standard in research is a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A meta-analysis analyzes multiple RCTs. So it looks like this study analyzed the results for 34 RCTs, which is why the population is so high (11,000+ women). This is a pretty strong article.

Please remember not every research article printed in a journal is a well done article. Meaning, results of a research is only as strong as the design of the research. If the design is weak, the results pretty much mean nothing. Typically, it's people who are involved in the ins and outs of the field that can fully determine the strength of the article, which therefore strengthens the result.

In any case, fantastic find Lisette!

For the Moderators: is there any way someone can post information to provide the members with the tools to figure out how to understand the parts of a journal article? People are used to accepting that if something is printed in a medical journal, it's as good as the Gospel. It seems that people on this site are truly trying to understand the science behind what's happening and want to be on top of the most current research. Just my opinion, but I think giving members the tools to be able to pick out good articles might be empowering. (Eg: discussing study designs and why one study might be stronger than another, basic statistical analysis, etc).

Preface: I did not read the article...I'm hoping someone will just know the answer because I am lazy.

Most women don't get PE a second time no matter what they do or don't do. Was this confounding factor controlled in this study?

Jasmin, yes -- I try to do this now by incorporating little bits of philosophy of science etc. into each journal article I post, or links to others that do a better (or funnier) job of explanation than I do! And then of course when posters ask for clarification people with the background -- like you -- often pop in and clear things up nicely.

When the site overhaul comes online here shortly we will be able to incorporate more such explanation independently of articles, but at the moment one thing we know for certain is that the stickies disappear for most people once they start searching Active Topics only, so the stuff I sticky is still mostly off everyone's radar. :) That's why I embedded the links into my .sig, too. And the majority of our site views don't even come from the forum.

Here's a couple examples from me:
http://www.preeclampsia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39318
http://www.preeclampsia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39866
http://www.preeclampsia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30759
http://www.preeclampsia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37926

But any of our posters who know this stuff -- we have a PhD immunologist and a PhD epidemiologist and an IRB human research director and a histocompatibility tech at the big transplant hospital in Boston and several nurses and several biology teachers and you on the site at the moment -- often chime in too, which is awesome and I love seeing it. :)

I'm bumping this one up to the Experts, because the last time I asked them about this, in May, they were pretty dismissive of the value of aspirin at this point, in response to new research they'd just seen. Could have been something at a poster session that hasn't made it into a journal yet, but I'm sure they'll make some sense of it for us.

Thank you, riehlism! What you said is very true..
wow..that really makes me happy and hopeful-thank you! Even if it just prolongs pregnancy by 1.4 weeks, anything is a help! (And maybe that's just an average anyway?)

The first link Lisette provided does site:

Prevention of Preeclampsia and Intrauterine Growth Restriction With Aspirin Started in Early Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis
Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:402-414.

So it looks like the most recent issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal. If you were trying to find the actual literature you can find this on PubMed.

The meta-analysis is the strongest type of research in the heirarchy of the types of research articles. The gold standard in research is a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A meta-analysis analyzes multiple RCTs. So it looks like this study analyzed the results for 34 RCTs, which is why the population is so high (11,000+ women). This is a pretty strong article.

Please remember not every research article printed in a journal is a well done article. Meaning, results of a research is only as strong as the design of the research. If the design is weak, the results pretty much mean nothing. Typically, it's people who are involved in the ins and outs of the field that can fully determine the strength of the article, which therefore strengthens the result.

In any case, fantastic find Lisette!

For the Moderators: is there any way someone can post information to provide the members with the tools to figure out how to understand the parts of a journal article? People are used to accepting that if something is printed in a medical journal, it's as good as the Gospel. It seems that people on this site are truly trying to understand the science behind what's happening and want to be on top of the most current research. Just my opinion, but I think giving members the tools to be able to pick out good articles might be empowering. (Eg: discussing study designs and why one study might be stronger than another, basic statistical analysis, etc).

I don't know but happen to come across it last night. I also was looking at Columbia.edu and if you click on clinical trials and type preeclampsia you will see all the different types of research there doing on this. As a matter a fact this is the link.

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=preeclampsia

Is that true? I thought it wasn't proven yet to help??? Is there any other evidence supporting this out there on pubmed or somewhere?

check this link out it was published on July 30th 2010
http://www.thedoctorschannel.com/video/3510.html