Nifedipine <i>versus</i> Terbutaline, Tocolytic Effectiveness and Maternal and Neonatal Adverse Effects: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although previous evidence suggests advantages of nifedipine over terbutaline as tocolytic agents, in some jurisdictions, terbutaline is approved for use and nifedipine is not. In women in preterm labour, we compared the impact of terbutaline versus nifedipine on inhibition of uterine contractions, preterm birth, neonatal sepsis, intracranial haemorrhage or necrotizing enterocolitis, death or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit and maternal adverse reactions. We randomized 32 women to nifedipine and 34 to terbutaline. We found no difference between groups in tocolysis or preterm birth. No serious maternal adverse effects or serious neonatal adverse outcome occurred in either group. Less serious maternal adverse effects less common with terbutaline included flushing (2.94% versus 43.7%) and headache (5.9% versus 31.2%). The administration of terbutaline increased tremor (76.4% versus 0%), nausea (58.8% versus 9.4%) and dizziness (29.4% versus 6.25%). The total number of side effects, and the proportion of women experiencing one or more side effects, proved greater with terbutaline. In this study, terbutaline and nifedipine performed similarly in their tocolytic effects. Each drug has specific side effects, although overall, nifedipine was associated with fewer adverse effects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".