MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281256269 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17222

Calcium for pre‐eclampsia prevention: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis to guide personalised antenatal care

2022· review· en· W4281256269 on OpenAlexaff
Mai‐Lei Woo Kinshella, Catherine Sarr, Jeffrey N. Bone, Marianne Vidler, Sophie E. Moore, Rajavel Elango, Gabriela Cormick, José M. Belizán, G Justus Hofmeyr, Laura A. Magee, Peter von Dadelszen

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineEclampsiaCalciumMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations85
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207