The Use of Metronidazole During Pregnancy: A Review of Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence concerning the relationship between the exposure to metronidazole during pregnancy and the risk of preterm delivery and birth defects. METHODS: Studies investigating the association between gestational use of oral metronidazole on human subjects and the risk of preterm birth or/and birth defects were systematically retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We selected studies published in English or French between 1964 and 2012. Where effect estimates were not reported, crude ORs along with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: We selected 17 studies investigating the association between exposure to oral metronidazole and the risk of preterm birth, from which 12 were randomized clinical trials. In addition, we identified 13 studies devoted to the relationship between metronidazole and birth defects, from which 10 were cohort studies, 1 was a case-control study and 2 were meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: During pregnancy, treating bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis with metronidazole is effective and offers no teratogen risk. Benefit of metronidazole in the reduction of preterm birth was demonstrated for the combination of this medication with other antibiotics. Additional information is needed when metronidazole is used in association with other agents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".