Anticoagulants to prevent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications: a review of current evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Placenta-mediated pregnancy complications are relatively common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although anticoagulants are increasingly being used to prevent these complications, the evidence supporting their use is limited. This article will focus on reviewing the current evidence base for the use of anticoagulants to prevent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in women with or without identifiable thrombophilia. RECENT FINDINGS: Controversy exists whether inherited or acquired thrombophilias cause placenta-mediated complications. Small randomized studies with methodological limitations suggest that antepartum anticoagulant prophylaxis will reduce pregnancy loss in women with both acquired and inherited thrombophilia and prior pregnancy loss. There are no published randomized controlled trials examining anticoagulant prophylaxis in thrombophilic women with prior preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction or placental abruption. More recently, the benefit of antepartum anticoagulant prophylaxis in women without thrombophilia with prior placenta-mediated pregnancy complications has been suggested in a small pilot randomized trial. SUMMARY: Overall, although antepartum anticoagulant prophylaxis has the potential to reduce placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in women with and without identifiable thrombophilia, the data generated by these trials are methodologically limited and inadequate. Hence, we conclude that further trials are required prior to adopting the use of antepartum anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in routine clinical practice.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".