Cabergoline Use and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lack of available expert guidelines leads clinicians to interrupt cabergoline treatment upon confirmation of pregnancy and consider switching to bromocriptine, which is more commonly used during pregnancy but is poorly tolerated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to evaluate pregnancy outcomes, primarily major malformations and spontaneous abortions, after pregnancy exposure to cabergoline during the first trimester compared to pregnancy exposure to other comparators or no treatment. METHODS: An Embase, Pubmed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov search was performed. Full articles published before October 27, 2022, and evaluating the effect of cabergoline on major malformations and spontaneous abortions were considered for inclusion in the review. Search results were manually screened and selected by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Totally, 2186 records were identified. After removal of duplicates and screening of abstracts, 65 full-text articles were consulted. Thirty articles corresponded to our selection criteria and were included in the systematic review. This review identified 1662 pregnancies exposed to cabergoline. Most studies did not find an increased risk of congenital malformations or spontaneous abortions with cabergoline compared to other comparators or no treatment. Overall study quality was low, and there was high heterogeneity between studies. CONCLUSION: This review revealed no negative impact on major malformations and spontaneous abortions of cabergoline use in pregnancy compared to other comparators or no treatment. However, additional high-quality studies are needed to further study the safety of cabergoline use during pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021256219 (October 19, 2021).
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".