MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevention and treatment of postpartum hypertension

2005· review· en· W4245977675 on OpenAlexaff
Laura A. Magee, Susan Sadeghi, Peter von Dadelszen

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboMethyldopaPostpartum periodBlood pressureChildbirthObstetricsClinical trialPregnancyRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postpartum blood pressure (BP) is highest three to six days after birth when most women have been discharged home. A significant rise in BP may be dangerous (e.g., lead to stroke), but there is little information about how to prevent or treat postpartum hypertension. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative benefits and risks of interventions to: (1) prevent postpartum hypertension, by assessing whether 'routine' postpartum administration of oral antihypertensive therapy is better than placebo/no treatment; and(2) treat postpartum hypertension, by assessing whether (i) oral antihypertensive therapy is better than placebo/no therapy for mild-moderate postpartum hypertension; and (ii) one antihypertensive agent offers advantages over another for mild-moderate or severe postpartum hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (March 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2003), EMBASE (1980 to January 2003), bibliographies of retrieved papers and personal files. SELECTION CRITERIA: For women with antenatal hypertension, trials comparing a medical intervention with placebo/no therapy. For women with postpartum hypertension, trials comparing one antihypertensive with either another or placebo/no therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted the data independently and were not blinded to trial characteristics or outcomes. We contacted authors for missing data when possible. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials are included. PREVENTION: Three trials (315 women; six comparisons) compared furosemide or nifedipine capsules with placebo/no therapy. There are insufficient data for conclusions about possible benefits and risks of these management strategies. Most outcomes included data from only one trial. No trial reported severe maternal hypertension or breastfeeding. TREATMENT: In two trials (106 women; three comparisons), oral timolol or hydralazine were compared with oral methyldopa for treatment of mild to moderate postpartum hypertension. In one trial (38 women; one comparison), oral hydralazine plus sublingual nifedipine were compared with sublingual nifedipine for treatment of severe postpartum hypertension. The need for additional antihypertensive therapy did not differ between groups (relative risk 4.24, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 18.84; three trials, N = 144 women), but three antihypertensive drugs were studied. All were well tolerated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no reliable data to guide management of women who are hypertensive postpartum or at increased risk of becoming so. If a clinician feels that hypertension is severe enough to treat, the agent used should be based on his/her familiarity with the drug. Future studies of prevention or treatment of postpartum hypertension should include information about use of postpartum analgesics and outcomes of severe maternal hypertension, breastfeeding, hospital length of stay, and maternal satisfaction with care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207