Prescription drug use during pregnancy in developed countries: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the literature describing patterns of outpatient prescription drug use during pregnancy by therapeutic category, potential for fetal harm, and overall. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from 1989 to 2010. We included studies evaluating individual-level exposures to prescription medicines during pregnancy. We selected only studies conducted in developed (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development) countries and published in English. RESULTS: Published drug utilization studies reveal wide variation in estimates of overall prescription drug use in pregnancy (27-93% of pregnant women filling at least one prescription excluding vitamins and minerals). Among studies of similar design, estimates were lowest in Northern European countries (44-47%) and highest in France (93%) and Germany (85%). Measured rates of use of contraindicated medicines in pregnancy ranged from 0.9% (Denmark, 1991-1996) to 4.6% (USA, 1996-2000). The use of medicines with positive evidence of risk ranged from 2.0% (Italy, 2004) to 59.3% (France, 1996). CONCLUSION: Avoidable inconsistencies in study design and reporting attenuate conclusions that can be drawn from the literature on antenatal drug utilization. Nevertheless, the body of published research shows that antenatal prescription drug use is common, with many studies finding that a majority of women use one or more prescription medicine during pregnancy. Similarly, studies consistently report the use of drugs recognized as having potential risks in pregnancy. Given this widespread use, it is particularly important to develop standards for calculating and reporting antenatal exposures to improve the value of future research in this area.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".