Duration of Postpartum Magnesium Sulphate for the Prevention of Eclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the optimal duration of postpartum magnesium sulphate to prevent eclampsia. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception until January 2020 and limited to English-language human randomized controlled trials. Search strategy included the key works "eclampsia," "magnesium sulphate," and "postpartum." METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Title, abstract, and full-text review was performed using Covidence data-management software. Of the 3,629 articles screened, 10 studies were included in the final review. Studies were included if they compared two different time points of magnesium sulphate postpartum in women with either preeclampsia or eclampsia. TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Two authors reviewed studies independently. RevMan software was used to calculate risk difference (RD) for categorical outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes. Shorter duration of magnesium sulphate (12 hours or less) was not associated with increased risk of eclampsia compared with 24-hour postpartum regimens (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, I2 70%). Studies randomizing women with preeclampsia did not show increased risk of eclampsia with shorter regimens (RD 0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, I2 0%), nor did trials randomizing those with eclampsia (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.07, I2 87%). Secondary outcomes, including flushing, duration of Foley catheter insertion, time to ambulation, and duration of hospital stay, were all reduced with shorter-duration magnesium sulphate. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a shorter duration of postpartum magnesium sulphate does not increase the risk for eclamptic seizure; however, data remain underpowered to render firm conclusions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42020182432.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".