Comparative fertility and pregnancy outcomes after local treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage 1a1 cervical cancer: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis from the CIRCLE group

Introduction There are several local treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia that remove or ablate a cone-shaped part of the uterine cervix. There is evidence to suggest that these increase the risk of preterm birth (PTB) and that this is higher for techniques that remove larger parts of the cervix, although the data are conflicting. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) that will update the evidence and compare all treatments in terms of fertility and pregnancy complications. Methods and analysis We will search electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) from inception till October 2019, in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the fertility and pregnancy outcomes among different excisional and ablative treatment techniques and/or to untreated controls. The primary outcome will be PTB (<37 weeks). Secondary outcomes will include severe or extreme PTB, prelabour rupture of membranes, low birth weight (<2500 g), neonatal intensive care unit admission, perinatal mortality, total pregnancy rates, first and second trimester miscarriage. We will search for published and unpublished studies in electronic databases, trial registries and we will hand-search references of published papers. We will assess the risk of bias in RCTs and cohort studies using tools developed by the Cochrane collaboration. Two investigators will independently assess the eligibility, abstract the data and assess the risk of bias of the identified studies. For each outcome, we will perform a meta-analysis for each treatment comparison and an NMA once the transitivity assumption holds, using the OR for dichotomous data. We will use CINeMA (Confidence in Network meta-analysis) to assess the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated to academic beneficiaries, medical practitioners, patients and the public. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018115495

[1]  H. Du,et al.  The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples , 2020, PloS one.

[2]  M. Paraskevaidi,et al.  Cervical Pathology Following HPV Vaccination in Greece: A 10-year HeCPA Observational Cohort Study , 2020, In Vivo.

[3]  Ian R. White,et al.  Network Meta-analysis , 2015 .

[4]  Jack Bowden,et al.  A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses , 2018, Research synthesis methods.

[5]  M. Paraskevaidi,et al.  Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial lesions and early invasive disease. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[6]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Combining randomized and non‐randomized evidence in network meta‐analysis , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  M. Hernán,et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[8]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  GetReal in network meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology , 2016, Research synthesis methods.

[9]  Areti Angeliki Veroniki,et al.  The rank-heat plot is a novel way to present the results from a network meta-analysis including multiple outcomes. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[11]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[12]  Ralf Bender,et al.  Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis† , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[13]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials , 2016 .

[14]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Publication bias and small-study effects magnified effectiveness of antipsychotics but their relative ranking remained invariant. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  M. Paraskevaidi,et al.  Fertility and early pregnancy outcomes after conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[16]  Gerta Rücker,et al.  Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[17]  Sofia Dias,et al.  Extending Treatment Networks in Health Technology Assessment: How Far Should We Go? , 2015, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[18]  Gerta Rücker,et al.  Network Meta-Analysis using Frequentist Methods , 2015 .

[19]  B. Mol,et al.  The risk of preterm birth of treated versus untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2015, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[20]  P. Bennett,et al.  Proportion of cervical excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia as a predictor of pregnancy outcomes , 2015, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[21]  Rebecca M. Turner,et al.  Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  Naveena Singh,et al.  Risk of preterm delivery with increasing depth of excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: nested case-control study , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  P. Martin-Hirsch,et al.  Fertility and early pregnancy outcomes after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Characteristics of a loop of evidence that affect detection and estimation of inconsistency: a simulation study , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[25]  Anna Chaimani,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis , 2014, PloS one.

[26]  G. Colditz,et al.  Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure and Risk of Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2014, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[27]  J. Gondry,et al.  Long term outcomes for women treated for cervical precancer , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  P. Sparén,et al.  Effect of ageing on cervical or vaginal cancer in Swedish women previously treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: population based cohort study of long term incidence and mortality , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[30]  Harald Binder,et al.  Visualizing the flow of evidence in network meta‐analysis and characterizing mixed treatment comparisons , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  H. Dickinson,et al.  Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[32]  Panagiota Spyridonos,et al.  Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA , 2013, PloS one.

[33]  Andrea Cipriani,et al.  Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[34]  Huseyin Naci,et al.  Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers , 2013, BMC Medicine.

[35]  Chen Li,et al.  Pregnancy outcome following loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2013, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[36]  Fujian Song,et al.  Simulation evaluation of statistical properties of methods for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[37]  P. Martin-Hirsch,et al.  Increased risk of preterm birth after treatment for CIN , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[38]  I. White,et al.  Quantifying the impact of between-study heterogeneity in multivariate meta-analyses , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[39]  Anna Chaimani,et al.  Using network meta‐analysis to evaluate the existence of small‐study effects in a network of interventions , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[40]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[41]  Dan Jackson,et al.  Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression‡ , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[42]  W. Prendiville,et al.  The thickness and volume of LLETZ specimens can predict the relative risk of pregnancy‐related morbidity , 2012, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[43]  Simon G Thompson,et al.  Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , 2012, International journal of epidemiology.

[44]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[45]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[46]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[47]  W. Prendiville,et al.  Proportion of excision and cervical healing after large loop excision of the transformation zone for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2010, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[48]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[49]  Mark Dignan,et al.  Cervical cancer prevention , 2010, Cancer.

[50]  S. Kjaer,et al.  Depth of Cervical Cone Removed by Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure and Subsequent Risk of Spontaneous Preterm Delivery , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[51]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[52]  W. Prendiville,et al.  Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[53]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Evaluation of networks of randomized trials , 2008, Statistical methods in medical research.

[54]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta‐analysis , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[55]  P. Martin-Hirsch,et al.  Commentary: Have we dismissed ablative treatment too soon in colposcopy practice? , 2006, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[56]  M Arbyn,et al.  Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2006, The Lancet.

[57]  Andrea Cipriani,et al.  Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[58]  Deborah M Caldwell,et al.  Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[59]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[60]  Kurex Sidik,et al.  A simple confidence interval for meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[61]  J. Hartung,et al.  A refined method for the meta‐analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[62]  P. Edwards,et al.  British Medical Journal , 1876 .

[63]  M. Mitchell,et al.  A Randomized Clinical Trial of Cryotherapy, Laser Vaporization, and Loop Electrosurgical Excision for Treatment of Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the Cervix , 1998, Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[64]  A Whitehead,et al.  Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[65]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.