Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Apr;305(4):885-892. doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06213-5. Epub 2021 Aug 30.
To critically analyse the literature on the antenatal corticosteroids (ACS)-to-birth interval from a causal point of view and to present a solution to the problem of bias caused by post hoc analysis.
Due to the post hoc nature of the ACS-to-birth interval, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of ACS versus placebo is not able to examine the importance of the interval. When an RCT is not feasible, for whatsoever reason, a target trial can be set up and an attempt can be made to answer the causal question of interest using observational data. An attempt was made to set up a target trial which could enable to examine the causal effect of the ACS-to-birth interval on neonatal outcomes. An analysis of current literature on the ACS-to-birth interval was done.
The majority of studies aimed to examine the causal effect of the interval, but their study design only permitted to find associations between the interval and neonatal outcomes. Barriers for setting up a target trial are highlighted.
Evidence on the superiority of any ACS-to-birth interval is lacking and the question can only be addressed causally and become clinically relevant if baseline randomisation to ACS-to-birth intervals is made possible.
从因果关系的角度批判性地分析产前皮质类固醇(ACS)与分娩间隔的文献,并提出一种解决事后分析引起的偏差问题的方法。
由于 ACS 与分娩间隔的事后性质,ACS 与安慰剂的随机对照试验(RCT)无法检验间隔的重要性。当出于任何原因无法进行 RCT 时,可以设立一个目标试验,并尝试使用观察数据回答感兴趣的因果问题。尝试建立一个目标试验,以检验 ACS 与分娩间隔对新生儿结局的因果效应。对 ACS 与分娩间隔的当前文献进行了分析。
大多数研究旨在检验间隔的因果效应,但它们的研究设计仅允许发现间隔与新生儿结局之间的关联。强调了设立目标试验的障碍。
缺乏任何 ACS 与分娩间隔优越性的证据,只有通过基线随机分配 ACS 与分娩间隔才能使问题从因果关系上得到解决,并具有临床相关性。