Carbimazole, Thiamazole (Methimazole)

Hypothyroidism (fetal/neonatal)

R analysis
id Study   Lib. in paper Exposition period    Study type 
 Control type 
 
Tags OR 95%CI x1/n1 x0/n0 no cases no exposed ROB Ref.
S3421
R10979		 Hawken (control exposed to PTU), 2016 Neonatal hypothyroidism 2nd trimester retrospective cohort exposed to other treatment, sick Adjustment: No 0.65 [0.02;17.40] C 0/11   1/22 1 11
ref
S3455
R6566		 Dwarakanath (control exposed to PTU), 1999 Clinical thyroid dysfunction (Hypothyroidism) throughout pregnancy retrospective cohort exposed to other treatment, sick Adjustment: No 1.00 [0.02;58.44] C 0/7   0/7 0 7
ref
S3392
R6587		 Wing (control exposed to PTU), 1994 Congenital hypothyroidism during pregnancy (anytime or not specified) cohort exposed to other treatment, sick excluded Adjustment: No 0.92 [0.04;23.00] C
excluded (control group) 		0/36   1/99 1 36
ref
S3391
R6588		 Wing (control unexposed, sick), 1994 Congenital hypothyroidism during pregnancy (anytime or not specified) cohort unexposed, sick Adjustment: No 1.20 [0.02;61.88] C 0/36   0/43 0 36
ref
Total 3 studies 0.88 [0.10;7.50] 1 54
x1: number of endpoints among exposed, n1: number of exposed; x0: number of endpoints among non exposed, n0: number of non exposed; C: calculated odds ratio from numbers of events and effectives

Forest plot

StudyTE95% CIn casesn exposedweightROBABCDEF Hawken (control exposed to PTU), 2016Hawken, 2016 1 0.65[0.02; 17.40]11143%ROB confusion: criticalROB selection: criticalROB classification: unclearROB missing: lowROB mesure: criticalROB reporting: unclear Dwarakanath (control exposed to PTU), 1999Dwarakanath, 1999 2 1.00[0.02; 58.44]0728%ROB confusion: criticalROB selection: moderateROB classification: moderateROB missing: lowROB mesure: moderateROB reporting: unclear Wing (control unexposed, sick), 1994Wing, 1994 3 1.20[0.02; 61.88]03630%ROB confusion: criticalROB selection: lowROB classification: moderateROB missing: lowROB mesure: moderateROB reporting: moderate Total (3 studies) I2 = 0% 0.88[0.10; 7.50]1540.25.01.0ROB: A: confusion, B: selection, C: classification, D: missing, E: measurement, F: reportinglow,moderate,serious,critical,unclear,

1: control exposed to PTU; 2: control exposed to PTU; 3: control unexposed, sick;

Sensitivity analysis

SubsetTE95% CIn casesn exposedkI2 Type of studies cohort studiescohort studies 0.88[0.10; 7.50]1540%NAHawken (control exposed to PTU), 2016 Dwarakanath (control exposed to PTU), 1999 Wing (control unexposed, sick), 1994 3 case control studiescase control studies 0 Type of controls unexposed, sickunexposed, sick 1.20[0.02; 61.88]-36 -NAWing (control unexposed, sick), 1994 1 exposed to other treatment, sickexposed to other treatment, sick 0.77[0.06; 9.94]1180%NAHawken (control exposed to PTU), 2016 Dwarakanath (control exposed to PTU), 1999 2 Tags Adjustment   - No  - No 0.88[0.10; 7.50]1540%NAHawken (control exposed to PTU), 2016 Dwarakanath (control exposed to PTU), 1999 Wing (control unexposed, sick), 1994 3 All studiesAll studies 0.88[0.10; 7.50]1540%NAHawken (control exposed to PTU), 2016 Dwarakanath (control exposed to PTU), 1999 Wing (control unexposed, sick), 1994 30.25.01.0

Publication bias and p-hacking diagnosis

funnel plot

Funnel plot not drawn. Less than 3 points.

Asymetry test p-value = NaN (by Egger's regression)

not enought points

p values plot

Funnel plot not drawn. Less than 3 points.

Sub-groups analysis using all included studies

excluded 3392

Sub-groupsTE95% CIn casesn exposedkI2ROB type of controls unexposed, sick controlsunexposed, sick controls 1.20[0.02; 61.88]-36 -NAWing (control unexposed, sick), 1994 1 exposed to other treatment, sick controlsexposed to other treatment, sick controls 0.82[0.11; 6.11]2540%NAHawken (control exposed to PTU), 2016 Dwarakanath (control exposed to PTU), 1999 Wing (control exposed to PTU), 1994 30.510.01.0