Calcium for pre‐eclampsia prevention: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis to guide personalised antenatal care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calcium supplementation reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, but questions remain about the dosage to prescribe and who would benefit most. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of high (≥1 g/day) and low (<1 g/day) calcium dosing for pre-eclampsia prevention, according to baseline dietary calcium, pre-eclampsia risk and co-interventions, and intervention timing. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL, PubMed, Global Index Medicus and CINAHL, from inception to 2 February 2021, clinical trial registries, reference lists and expert input (CRD42018111239). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of calcium supplementation for pre-eclampsia prevention, for women before or during pregnancy. Network meta-analysis (NMA) also included trials of different calcium doses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers extracted published data. The meta-analysis employed random-effects models and the NMA, a Bayesian random-effects model, to obtain direct and indirect effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 30 trials (N = 20 445 women), and the NMA to evaluate calcium dosage included 25 trials (N = 15 038). Calcium supplementation prevented pre-eclampsia similarly with a high dose (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.66) or a low dose (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.65). By NMA, high-dose (vs low-dose) calcium did not differ in effect (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43-1.40). Calcium was similarly effective regardless of baseline pre-eclampsia risk, vitamin D co-administration or timing of calcium initiation, but calcium was ineffective among women with adequate average baseline calcium intake. CONCLUSIONS: Low- and high-dose calcium supplementation are effective for pre-eclampsia prevention in women with low calcium intake. This has implications for population-level implementation where dietary calcium is low, and targeted implementation where average intake is adequate. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A network meta-analysis of 25 trials found that low-dose calcium supplementation (<1 g/day) is as effective as high-dose calcium supplementation (≥1 g/day) in halving the risk of pre-eclampsia when baseline calcium intake is low.
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 | 0.021 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".