A random effects meta‐analysis combines the results of several independent studies to summarise the evidence about a particular measure of interest, such as a treatment effect. The approach allows for unexplained between‐study heterogeneity in the true treatment effect by incorporating random study effects about the overall mean. The variance of the mean effect estimate is conventionally calculated by assuming that the between study variance is known; however, it has been demonstrated that this approach may be inappropriate, especially when there are few studies. Alternative methods that aim to account for this uncertainty, such as Hartung–Knapp, Sidik–Jonkman and Kenward–Roger, have been proposed and shown to improve upon the conventional approach in some situations. In this paper, we use a simulation study to examine the performance of several of these methods in terms of the coverage of the 95% confidence and prediction intervals derived from a random effects meta‐analysis estimated using restricted maximum likelihood. We show that, in terms of the confidence intervals, the Hartung–Knapp correction performs well across a wide‐range of scenarios and outperforms other methods when heterogeneity was large and/or study sizes were similar. However, the coverage of the Hartung–Knapp method is slightly too low when the heterogeneity is low (I 2 < 30%) and the study sizes are quite varied. In terms of prediction intervals, the conventional approach is only valid when heterogeneity is large (I 2 > 30%) and study sizes are similar. In other situations, especially when heterogeneity is small and the study sizes are quite varied, the coverage is far too low and could not be consistently improved by either increasing the number of studies, altering the degrees of freedom or using variance inflation methods. Therefore, researchers should be cautious in deriving 95% prediction intervals following a frequentist random‐effects meta‐analysis until a more reliable solution is identified. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundInfections acquired in hospital are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. Several small trials have suggested that supplementing the enteral diet of very preterm infants with lactoferrin, an antimicrobial protein processed from cow's milk, prevents infections and associated complications. The aim of this large randomised controlled trial was to collect data to enhance the validity and applicability of the evidence from previous trials to inform practice.MethodsIn this randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited very preterm infants born before 32 weeks' gestation in 37 UK hospitals and younger than 72 h at randomisation. Exclusion criteria were presence of a severe congenital anomaly, anticipated enteral fasting for longer than 14 days, or no realistic prospect of survival. Eligible infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either enteral bovine lactoferrin (150 mg/kg per day; maximum 300 mg/day; lactoferrin group) or sucrose (same dose; control group) once daily until 34 weeks' postmenstrual age. Web-based randomisation minimised for recruitment site, gestation (completed weeks), sex, and single versus multifetal pregnancy. Parents, caregivers, and outcome assessors were unaware of group assignment. The primary outcome was microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset infection (occurring >72 h after birth), which was assessed in all participants for whom primary outcome data was available by calculating the relative risk ratio with 95% CI between the two groups. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number 88261002.FindingsWe recruited 2203 participants between May 7, 2014, and Sept 28, 2017, of whom 1099 were assigned to the lactoferrin group and 1104 to the control group. Four infants had consent withdrawn or unconfirmed, leaving 1098 infants in the lactoferrin group and 1101 in the sucrose group. Primary outcome data for 2182 infants (1093 [99·5%] of 1098 in the lactoferrin group and 1089 [99·0] of 1101 in the control group) were available for inclusion in the modified intention-to-treat analyses. 316 (29%) of 1093 infants in the intervention group acquired a late-onset infection versus 334 (31%) of 1089 in the control group. The risk ratio adjusted for minimisation factors was 0·95 (95% CI 0·86–1·04; p=0·233). During the trial there were 16 serious adverse events for infants in the lactoferrin group and 10 for infants in the control group. Two events in the lactoferrin group (one case of blood in stool and one death after intestinal perforation) were assessed as being possibly related to the trial intervention.InterpretationEnteral supplementation with bovine lactoferrin does not reduce the risk of late-onset infection in very preterm infants. These data do not support its routine use to prevent late-onset infection and associated morbidity or mortality in very preterm infants.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (10/57/49).

Identification as a study of diagnostic accuracy using at least one measure of accuracy (such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, or AUC) 1, 5

Summary Background Risk factors for maternal infection are clearly recognised, including caesarean section and operative vaginal birth. Antibiotic prophylaxis at caesarean section is widely recommended because there is clear systematic review evidence that it reduces incidence of maternal infection. Current WHO guidelines do not recommend routine antibiotic prophylaxis for women undergoing operative vaginal birth because of insufficient evidence of effectiveness. We aimed to investigate whether antibiotic prophylaxis prevented maternal infection after operative vaginal birth. Methods In a blinded, randomised controlled trial done at 27 UK obstetric units, women (aged ≥16 years) were allocated to receive a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid or placebo (saline) following operative vaginal birth at 36 weeks gestation or later. The primary outcome was confirmed or suspected maternal infection within 6 weeks of delivery defined by a new prescription of antibiotics for specific indications, confirmed systemic infection on culture, or endometritis. We did an intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 11166984, and is closed to accrual. Findings Between March 13, 2016, and June 13, 2018, 3427 women were randomly assigned to treatment: 1719 to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, and 1708 to placebo. Seven women withdrew, leaving 1715 in the amoxicillin and clavulanic acid group and 1705 in the placebo groups. Primary outcome data were missing for 195 (6%) women. Significantly fewer women allocated to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid had a confirmed or suspected infection (180 [11%] of 1619) than women allocated to placebo (306 [19%] of 1606; risk ratio 0·58, 95% CI 0·49–0·69; p<0·0001). One woman in the placebo group reported a skin rash and two women in the amoxicillin and clavulanic acid reported other allergic reactions, one of which was reported as a serious adverse event. Two other serious adverse events were reported, neither was considered causally related to the treatment. Interpretation This trial shows benefit of a single dose of prophylactic antibiotic after operative vaginal birth and guidance from WHO and other national organisations should be changed to reflect this. Funding NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.