MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971008606 · doi:10.4088/jcp.12r07966

Antidepressant Exposure During Pregnancy and Congenital Malformations: Is There an Association?

2013· review· en· W1971008606 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie Grigoriadis, Emily H. VonderPorten, Lana Mamisashvili, Michael Roerecke, Jürgen Rehm, Cindy‐Lee Dennis, Gideon Koren, Meir Steiner, Patricia Mousmanis, Amy Cheung, Lori E. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsBecton Dickinson (Canada)Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersH. Lundbeck A/SUniversity of TorontoCanadian Network for Mood and Anxiety TreatmentsEli Lilly CanadaServierSunnybrook Research InstituteUniversity of OtagoGlaxoSmithKlineCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenPfizerTechnische Universität DresdenAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskFluoxetineAntidepressantPregnancyPediatricsAtrioventricular Septal DefectInternal medicineHeart diseaseConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Depression is often not optimally treated during pregnancy, partially because of conflicting data regarding antidepressant medication risk. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether antenatal antidepressant exposure is associated with congenital malformations and to assess the effect of known methodological limitations. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were searched from their start dates to June 2010. Keywords of various combinations were used, including, but not limited to depressive/mood disorder, pregnancy, antidepressant drug/agent, congenital malformation, and cardiac malformation. STUDY SELECTION: English language studies reporting congenital malformations associated with antidepressants were included. Of 3,074 abstracts reviewed, 735 studies were retrieved and 27 studies were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers working independently assessed article quality. Data on use of any antidepressant, including fluoxetine and paroxetine specifically, were extracted. Outcomes included congenital malformations, major congenital malformations, cardiovascular defects, septal heart defects (ventral septal defects and atrial septal defects), and ventral septal defects only. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were above quality threshold and make up the primary meta-analyses. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were derived by using random-effects methods. Antidepressant exposure was not associated with congenital malformations (RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; P = .113) or major malformations (RR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.99-1.17; P = .095). However, increased risk for cardiovascular malformations (RR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08-1.71; P = .008) and septal heart defects (RR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .005) were found; the RR for ventral septal defects was similar to septal defects, although not significant (RR = 1.54; 95% CI, 0.71-3.33; P = .274). Pooled effects were significant for paroxetine and cardiovascular malformations (RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.08-1.88; P = .012). These results are contrasted with those addressing methodological limitations but are typically consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, antidepressants do not appear to be associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations, but statistical significance was found for cardiovascular malformations. Results were robust in several sensitivity analyses. Given that the RRs are marginal, they may be the result of uncontrolled confounders. Although the RRs were statistically significant, none reached clinically significant levels.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.022
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations177
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207