Adverse pregnancy outcomes between the anti-malarial drugs: Is there a difference between the drugs recommended by World Health Organization? Results of a mixed treatment comparison analysis of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data regarding the relative safety profile of anti-malarial drugs in pregnancy is sparse mainly limited by the absence of head-to-head clinical trials. The present study is a network meta-analysis of safety of anti-malarial drugs used to treat malaria in pregnant women. METHODS: A thorough literature search using the search strategy "Malaria [tiab] AND (Pregnant [tiab] OR Pregnancy [tiab])" was carried out for either randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies in pregnant malarial women prescribed any of the recommended anti-malarial drugs by World Health Organization (WHO) and that have reported adverse pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriage, still birth, and neonatal deaths. Odds ratio with 95% confidence interval was used as the effect estimate. Random-effects model and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation method was used to generate pooled estimates. Sensitivity analysis was performed excluding data from first trimester and GRADE approach was used to categorize the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 1242 papers were obtained with the search strategy, of which seven evaluating 10 treatment arms in a total of 5510 participants were included in the present meta-analysis. The pooled estimates revealed significantly lower risks of abortion with quinine and artemisinin-lumefantrine compared to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, artesunate with mefloquine and artesunate with amodiaquine. But when a cohort study that was conducted in the first trimester of pregnancy was excluded, no significant differences were observed in the risk of abortion between the anti-malarial drugs. No significant differences in the risk of either stillbirths or neonatal deaths were observed with any of the drugs. The quality of evidence was found to be very low due to serious limitations in both the precision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: WHO recommended anti-malarials in pregnancy have similar risk profiles with regard to abortion, stillbirth and neonatal deaths.
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 | 0.119 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.067 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".