Antithrombotic therapy for improving maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction and placental abruption are thought to have a common origin related to abnormalities in the development and function of the placenta. OBJECTIVES: To compare, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of antenatal antithrombotic therapy to improve maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction, when compared with other treatments, placebo or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 July 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing antenatal antithrombotic therapy (either alone or in combination with other agents) with placebo or no treatment, or any other treatment in the antenatal period to improve maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors evaluated trials under consideration for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the prestated eligibility criteria. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis for combining study data if the trials were judged to be sufficiently similar. We investigated heterogeneity by calculating I² statistic, and if this indicated a high level of heterogeneity among the trials included, we used a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 18 reports of 14 studies for consideration. The original review included five studies (484 women) which met the inclusion criteria, with a further five studies included in the updated review, involving an additional 655 women. The overall quality of the included trials was considered fair to good.Nine studies compared heparin (alone or in combination with dipyridamole or low-dose aspirin) with no treatment; and one compared trapidil (triazolopyrimidine).While this review identified the use of heparin to be associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk of perinatal mortality (six studies; 653 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.40; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.20 to 0.78), preterm birth before 34 (three studies; 494 women; RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73) and 37 (five studies; 621 women; RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.90) weeks' gestation, and infant birthweight below the 10th centile for gestational age (seven studies; 710 infants; RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61), there is a lack of reliable information available related to clinically relevant, serious adverse infant health outcomes, which have not been reported to date. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While treatment with heparin for women considered to be at particularly high risk of adverse pregnancy complications secondary to placental insufficiency was associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk of perinatal mortality, preterm birth before 34 and 37 weeks' gestation, and infant birthweight below the 10th centile for gestational age when compared with no treatment for women considered at increased risk of placental dysfunction, to date, important information about serious adverse infant and long-term childhood outcomes is unavailable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".