MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4298142394 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1754378

Eclampsia in Brazil in the 21st Century

2022· article· en· W4298142394 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
José Geraldo Lopes Ramos, Sérgio Hofmeister de Almeida Martins Costa, Nelson Sass

Notice bibliographique

RevueRevista Brasileira Ginecologia e Obstetrícia · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTanzaniaEclampsiaSocioeconomic statusDeveloping countryGeographyDemographySocioeconomicsPopulationEconomic growthPregnancySociologyEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Recently, Bartal and Sibai[ 1 ] wrote about the current concepts of eclampsia in the 21st Century. One of the several interesting points of this article is the comparison of the incidence of eclampsia between developed countries and countries with low socioeconomic status. The eclampsia rate per 10,000 births ranged around 150.6 in Madagascar, 140.1 in Tanzania and 50.2 in India. When comparing these numbers with those of developed countries, we see incredible lower rates such as 8.6 in Australia, 8.4 in Canada, 3.4 in the US, 2.7 in the UK and 1.5 in Finland. Guida et al.[ 2 ] analyzed data on the prevalence of eclampsia in Brazil. The cumulative frequency of hypertensive disease during pregnancy was 6.7%, which is similar to other countries. They found a frequency of eclampsia of 1.7 to 6.2% in hypertensive pregnant women. Of the 10 studies analyzed, 3 reported the occurrence of eclampsia. In these 3 series, we had 42,220 births and an eclampsia rate of 10.42 per 10,000 births. These data point to an eclampsia rate similar to Australia or Canada, but higher than in countries such as the UK and Finland.[ 1 ] When we analyze the ratios of general maternal mortality and death from hypertension and eclampsia in Brazil, we see that we still have a lot to improve. Using data from DATASUS,[ 3 ] which are the official data for Brazil and have been properly computed for many years, we found that the maternal mortality ratios due to hypertension have not changed from 2015 to 2019 ([ Fig. 1 ]). We used the data up to 2019 because they are the last published and revised data that have not yet been contaminated by the mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the comparative analysis of general maternal mortality, from hypertension and from eclampsia, we found an important difference between the Brazilian regions ([ Fig. 2 ]). The chance of death from eclampsia is 3 times higher in the northern region when compared with the southern region (odds ratio, OR = 3.26; 95% confidence interval, CI: 2.02–5.27) ([ Fig. 3 ]). The difference in mortality from hypertension during pregnancy among the Brazilians regions is very significant. The eclampsia mortality ratio ranged from 11.47 in the northern region to 2.07 per 100,000 live births in 2019 in the south region ([ Fig. 2 ]). In the comparative analysis with data from Bartal and Sibai,[ 1 ] we found a mortality rate due to eclampsia that managed to be almost zero in some countries. Fig. 1 Hypertension mortality rates in Brazil by regions from 2015 to 2019 per 100,000 live births. Fig. 2 Mortality per 100,000 live births by region in Brazil in 2019. Fig. 3 Odds ratio of maternal death from hypertension in pregnancy by regions of Brazil in relation to the southern region in 2019. We believe that the differences in eclampsia incidence and complication rates can be significantly reduced with simple, accessible, and already well-known health measures. Early access to prenatal care, adequate prenatal care, the use of protocols for the management of hypertension and eclampsia, early hospitalization of preeclampsia, indication of pregnancy resolution in cases of preeclampsia with signs of severity or close to term, the prescription of low-dose ASA and calcium supplements for pregnant women at risk for preeclampsia, prophylaxis of eclampsia with magnesium sulfate supplements in the peripartum and antihypertensive treatment are important measures. These measures have a high impact on maternal health and do not require the use of expensive or inaccessible technology. Brazil is immense and with different regional realities in its territories. Locations with greater socioeconomic vulnerability need to be supported and receive customized care for the reduction of their indicators to be achieved. Although the pathophysiology of preeclampsia has not yet been fully understood and its complete prevention is a difficult task, the occurrence of eclampsia and its consequences can and should be avoided. In the 21st century, we know what to do to treat hypertension during pregnancy and eradicate the deaths caused by it. Doctors gathered in the Brazilian Network for Studies on Hypertension in Pregnancy (RBEHG) have proposed projects with the objective of achieving “zero maternal deaths from hypertension.” The Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations (FEBRASGO), with its continuing education, has been discussing eclampsia in many Congresses and issuing very adequate Protocols, seeking to shed a light on this serious national problem. It is time that risk ranking systems actually work in Brazil and that health care providers for pregnant women (clinicians, family doctors, obstetricians, and nurses) commit to engaging with protocols. Those protocols are already widely known. Despite the difficulties, it encourages us to know that effective and cost-effective actions can be optimized depending on collaboration and an agreement that can guarantee greater safety for all our pregnant women. Publication History Article published online: 08 August 2022 © 2022. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda. Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,051
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,101

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRevista Brasileira Ginecologia e ObstetríciaMême sujetPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesTravaux en français237 207