-
Blood Advances Oct 2023Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of maternal morbi-mortality. Although obstetric risk factors are well described, the impact of predelivery hematologic and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of maternal morbi-mortality. Although obstetric risk factors are well described, the impact of predelivery hematologic and hemostatic biomarkers remains incompletely understood. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the available literature on the association between predelivery hemostatic biomarkers and PPH/severe PPH. Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to October 2022, we included observational studies on unselected pregnant women without bleeding disorder reporting on PPH and on predelivery hemostatic biomarkers. Two review authors independently performed title, abstract and full-text screening, upon which quantitative syntheses of studies reporting on the same hemostatic biomarker were conducted, calculating the mean difference (MD) between women with PPH/severe PPH and controls. A search on 18 October 2022 yielded 81 articles fitting our inclusion criteria. The heterogeneity between studies was considerable. With regard to PPH, the estimated average MD in the investigated biomarkers (platelets, fibrinogen, hemoglobin, Ddimer, activated partial thromboplastin time, and prothrombin time) were not statistically significant. Women who developed severe PPH had lower predelivery platelets than controls (MD = -26.0 109/L; 95% confidence interval, -35.8 to -16.1), whereas differences in predelivery fibrinogen concentration (MD = -0.31 g/L; 95% confidence interval, -0.75 to 0.13) and levels of factor XIII or hemoglobin were not statistically significant in women with and without severe PPH. Predelivery platelet counts were, on average, lower in women with severe PPH compared with controls, suggesting the potential usefulness of this biomarker for predicting severe PPH. This trial was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42022368075.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Hemostatics; Hemoglobins; Fibrinogen; Biomarkers
PubMed: 37307172
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023010143 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Mar 2024Dengue, Zika and chikungunya outbreaks pose a significant public health risk to Pacific Island communities. Differential diagnosis is challenging due to overlapping... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dengue, Zika and chikungunya outbreaks pose a significant public health risk to Pacific Island communities. Differential diagnosis is challenging due to overlapping clinical features and limited availability of laboratory diagnostic facilities. There is also insufficient information regarding the complications of these arboviruses, particularly for Zika and chikungunya. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate pooled prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the clinical manifestations of dengue, Zika and chikungunya in the Pacific Islands. Based on pooled prevalence estimates, clinical features that may help to differentiate between the arboviruses include headache, haemorrhage and hepatomegaly in dengue; rash, conjunctivitis and peripheral oedema in Zika; and the combination of fever and arthralgia in chikungunya infections. We estimated that the hospitalisation and mortality rates in dengue were 9.90% (95% CI 7.67-12.37) and 0.23% (95% CI 0.16-0.31), respectively. Severe forms of dengue occurred in 1.92% (95% CI 0.72-3.63) of reported cases and 23.23% (95% CI 13.58-34.53) of hospitalised patients. Complications associated with Zika virus included Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), estimated to occur in 14.08 (95% CI 11.71-16.66) per 10,000 reported cases, and congenital brain malformations such as microcephaly, particularly with first trimester maternal infection. For chikungunya, the hospitalisation rate was 2.57% (95% CI 1.30-4.25) and the risk of GBS was estimated at 1.70 (95% CI 1.06-2.48) per 10,000 reported cases. Whilst ongoing research is required, this systematic review enhances existing knowledge on the clinical manifestations of dengue, Zika and chikungunya infections and will assist Pacific Island clinicians during future arbovirus outbreaks.
Topics: Humans; Chikungunya Fever; Zika Virus; Pacific Islands; Dengue; Zika Virus Infection; Arboviruses
PubMed: 38340071
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2521 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jul 2023Induction at 38-40 weeks of gestation has been broadly suggested for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), yet its benefits and risks remain unclear. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes between induction and expectant management among women with gestational diabetes mellitus at term pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Induction at 38-40 weeks of gestation has been broadly suggested for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), yet its benefits and risks remain unclear. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze existing evidence on the effect of induction at term gestation among women with GDM.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Libraries, and Web of Science from inception to June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing induction with expectant management among GDM term pregnancies. Primary outcomes included caesarean section (CS) and macrosomia. All screening and extraction were conducted independently and in duplicates. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted to generate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
RESULTS
Of the 4,791 citations, 11 studies were included (3 RCTs and 8 observational studies). Compared to expectant management, GDM women with induction had a significantly lower odds for macrosomia (RCTs 0.49 [0.30-0.81]); observational studies 0.64 [0.54-0.77]), but not for CS (RCTs 0.95 [0.64-1.43]); observational studies 1.03 [0.79-1.34]). Induction was associated with a lower odds of severe perineal lacerations in observational studies (0.59 [0.39-0.88]). No significant difference was observed for other maternal or neonatal morbidities, or perinatal mortality between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
For GDM women, induction may reduce the risk of macrosomia and severe perineal lacerations compared to expectant management. Further rigorous studies with large sample sizes are warranted to better inform clinical implications.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Fetal Macrosomia; Lacerations; Watchful Waiting; Cesarean Section
PubMed: 37438706
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-05779-z -
JAMA Sep 2023Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are among the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in the US. The rate of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy has been...
IMPORTANCE
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are among the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in the US. The rate of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy has been increasing from approximately 500 cases per 10 000 deliveries in 1993 to 1021 cases per 10 000 deliveries in 2016 to 2017.
OBJECTIVE
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
POPULATION
Pregnant persons without a known diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy or chronic hypertension.
EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT
The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy with blood pressure measurements has substantial net benefit.
RECOMMENDATION
The USPSTF recommends screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnant persons with blood pressure measurements throughout pregnancy. (B recommendation).
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Advisory Committees; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Preventive Health Services; Mass Screening; Blood Pressure Determination
PubMed: 37721605
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.16991 -
Schizophrenia Research Dec 2023Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that affects a significant proportion of the global population, particularly those of childbearing age. Several studies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that affects a significant proportion of the global population, particularly those of childbearing age. Several studies have attempted to find an association between schizophrenia and obstetric complications, with varying results.
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to summarize the relationship between maternal schizophrenia and perinatal pregnancy outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science and Ovid EMBASE were searched from January 2001 to September 2022 using keywords related to pregnancy, women, schizophrenia.
STUDY SELECTION
A total of 23 independent studies across 21,253 individuals with schizophrenia were identified and included in the analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION
The following data were extracted: author, year of publication, country/continent of data collection, study design, demographic characteristics, diagnoses criteria, related complications. Data were analyzed using random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and were reported as prevalence and odd ratios (OR). Statistical heterogeneity was quantified with the I statistic.
RESULTS
The prevalence of adverse perinatal pregnancy outcomes was represented in descending order: cesarean section (26.0 %); labor induction (24.0 %); small for gestational age (10.5 %); gestational diabetes mellitus (9.2 %); preterm birth (9.1 %); low birth weight (7.8 %); preterm rupture of membranes (6.1 %); 1-Minute Apgar Score < 7 (5.6 %); large for gestational age (5.5 %); birth defect (5.4 %); antepartum hemorrhage (4.4 %);preeclampsia/eclampsia (4.8 %); postpartum hemorrhage (3.9 %); 5-Minute Apgar Score < 7 (3.6 %); gestational hypertension (3.3 %); placental abruption (1.0 %); placenta previa (0.6 %); thromboembolic disease (0.4 %); neonatal mortality (0.3 %) (P ≤ 0.05). There was a higher risk of adverse outcomes including gestational diabetes mellitus, preeclampsia/eclampsia, placental abruption, thromboembolic disease, preterm birth, birth defect, 1-Minute Apgar score < 7, small for gestational age, low birth weight and neonatal mortality compared with non-schizophrenia population (P ≤ 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Women with schizophrenia are at higher risk of adverse perinatal pregnancy outcomes. It is imperative that research efforts continue to focus on the reproductive safety of women with schizophrenia during their childbearing years.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Diabetes, Gestational; Abruptio Placentae; Cesarean Section; Pre-Eclampsia; Eclampsia; Schizophrenia; Placenta
PubMed: 37979419
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2023.11.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia or any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy from 24 weeks' gestation onwards and which resolves following the birth of the baby. Rates for GDM can be as high as 25% depending on the population and diagnostic criteria used, and overall rates are increasing globally. There is wide variation internationally in glycaemic treatment target recommendations for women with GDM that are based on consensus rather than high-quality trials.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 September 2022), and reference lists of the retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs. Trials were eligible for inclusion if women were diagnosed with GDM during pregnancy and the trial compared tighter and less-tight glycaemic targets during management. We defined tighter glycaemic targets as lower numerical glycaemic concentrations, and less-tight glycaemic targets as higher numerical glycaemic concentrations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods for carrying out data collection, assessing risk of bias, and analysing results. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data for the four included studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. Primary maternal outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. Primary infant outcomes included perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational-age, composite of mortality or serious morbidity, and neurosensory disability.
MAIN RESULTS
This was an update of a previous review completed in 2016. We included four RCTs (reporting on 1731 women) that compared a tighter glycaemic control with less-tight glycaemic control in women diagnosed with GDM. Three studies were parallel RCTs, and one study was a stepped-wedged cluster-RCT. The trials took place in Canada, New Zealand, Russia, and the USA. We judged the overall risk of bias to be unclear. Two trials were only published in abstract form. Tight glycaemic targets used in the trials ranged between ≤ 5.0 and 5.1 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and ≤ 6.7 and 7.4 mmol/L postprandial. Less-tight targets for glycaemic control used in the included trials ranged between < 5.3 and 5.8 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and < 7.8 and 8.0 mmol/L postprandial. For the maternal outcomes, compared with less-tight glycaemic control, the evidence suggests a possible increase in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with tighter glycaemic control (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.69, 2 trials, 1491 women; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. Tighter glycaemic control likely results in little to no difference in caesarean section rates (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17, 3 studies, 1662 women; moderate certainty evidence) or induction of labour rates (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18, 1 study, 1096 women; moderate certainty evidence) compared with less-tight control. No data were reported for the outcomes of subsequent development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, and postnatal depression. For the infant outcomes, it was difficult to determine if there was a difference in perinatal mortality (RR not estimable, 2 studies, 1499 infants; low certainty evidence), and there was likely no difference in being large-for-gestational-age (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The evidence suggests a possible reduction in the composite of mortality or serious morbidity with tighter glycaemic control (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29, 3 trials, 1559 infants; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. There is probably little difference between groups in infant hypoglycaemia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Tighter glycaemic control may not reduce adiposity in infants of women with GDM compared with less-tight control (mean difference -0.62%, 95% CI -3.23 to 1.99, 1 study, 60 infants; low certainty evidence), but the wide CI suggests significant uncertainty. We found no data for the long-term outcomes of diabetes or neurosensory disability. Women assigned to tighter glycaemic control experienced an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy compared with women assigned to less-tight glycaemic control (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 4 trials, 1718 women). Tighter glycaemic control reducedadherence with treatment compared with less-tight glycaemic control (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.51, 1 trial, 395 women). Overall the certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from low to moderate, downgraded primarily due to risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review is based on four trials (1731 women) with an overall unclear risk of bias. The trials provided data on most primary outcomes and suggest that tighter glycaemic control may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The risk of birth of a large-for-gestational-age infant and perinatal mortality may be similar between groups, and tighter glycaemic targets may result in a possible reduction in composite of death or severe infant morbidity. However, the CIs for these outcomes are wide, suggesting both benefit and harm. There remains limited evidence regarding the benefit of different glycaemic targets for women with GDM to minimise adverse effects on maternal and infant health. Glycaemic target recommendations from international professional organisations vary widely and are currently reliant on consensus given the lack of high-certainty evidence. Further high-quality trials are needed, and these should assess both short- and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies; include women's experiences; and assess health services costs in order to confirm the current findings. Two trials are ongoing.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Infant; Female; Diabetes, Gestational; Blood Glucose; Glycemic Control; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
PubMed: 37815094
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011624.pub3 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Sep 2023Diaphragmatic hernia (DH) is extremely rarely described during pregnancy. Due to the rarity, there is no diagnostic or treatment algorithm for DH in pregnancy.
BACKGROUND
Diaphragmatic hernia (DH) is extremely rarely described during pregnancy. Due to the rarity, there is no diagnostic or treatment algorithm for DH in pregnancy.
AIM
To summarize and define the most appropriate diagnostic methods and therapeutic options for DH in pregnancy based on scarce literature.
METHODS
Literature search of English-, German-, Spanish-, and Italian-language articles were performed using PubMed (1946-2021), PubMed Central (1900-2021), and Google Scholar. The PRISMA protocol was followed. The search terms included: Maternal diaphragmatic hernia, congenital hernia, pregnancy, cardiovascular collapse, mediastinal shift, abdominal pain in pregnancy, hyperemesis, diaphragmatic rupture during labor, puerperium, hernie diaphragmatique maternelle, hernia diafragmática congenital. Additional studies were identified by reviewing reference lists of retrieved studies. Demographic, imaging, surgical, and obstetric data were obtained.
RESULTS
One hundred and fifty-eight cases were collected. The average maternal age increased across observed periods. The proportion of congenital hernias increased, while the other types appeared stationary. Most DHs were left-sided (83.8%). The median number of herniated organs declined across observed periods. A working diagnosis was correct in 50%. DH type did not correlate to maternal or neonatal outcomes. Laparoscopic access increased while thoracotomy varied across periods. Presentation of less than 3 days carried a significant risk of strangulation in pregnancy.
CONCLUSION
The clinical presentation of DH is easily confused with common chest conditions, delaying the diagnosis, and increasing maternal and fetal mortality. Symptomatic DH should be included in the differential diagnosis of pregnant women with abdominal pain associated with dyspnea and chest pain, especially when followed by collapse. Early diagnosis and immediate intervention lead to excellent maternal and fetal outcomes. A proposed algorithm helps manage pregnant women with maternal DH. Strangulated DH requires an emergent operation, while delivery should be based on obstetric indications.
PubMed: 37900237
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i27.6440 -
Cancers Jan 2024We estimated the prevalence and clinical outcomes of sarcopenia among breast cancer patients. A systematic literature search was carried out for the period between... (Review)
Review
We estimated the prevalence and clinical outcomes of sarcopenia among breast cancer patients. A systematic literature search was carried out for the period between July 2023 and October 2023. Studies with breast cancer patients evaluated for sarcopenia in relation to overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), relapse of disease (DFS), pathological complete response (pCR), or toxicity to chemotherapy were included. Out of 359 screened studies, 16 were eligible for meta-analysis, including 6130 patients, of whom 5284 with non-MBC. Sarcopenia was evaluated with the computed tomography (CT) scan skeletal muscle index and, in two studies, with the dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) appendicular lean mass index. Using different classifications and cut-off points, overall, there were 2007 sarcopenic patients (33%), of whom 1901 (95%) presented with non-MBC. Sarcopenia was associated with a 33% and 29% higher risk of mortality and progression/relapse of disease, respectively. Sarcopenic patients were more likely to develop grade 3-4 toxicity (OR 3.58, 95% CI 2.11-6.06, < 0.0001). In the neoadjuvant setting, a higher rate of pCR was observed among sarcopenic patients (49%) (OR 2.74, 95% CI 0.92-8.22). Our meta-analysis confirms the correlation between sarcopenia and negative outcomes, especially in terms of higher toxicity.
PubMed: 38339347
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030596 -
Intervirology 2024The world has witnessed one of the largest pandemics, dubbed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As of December 2020, the USA alone reported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The world has witnessed one of the largest pandemics, dubbed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As of December 2020, the USA alone reported 98,948 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection during pregnancy, with 109 related maternal deaths. Current evidence suggests that unvaccinated pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at a higher risk of experiencing complications related to COVID-19 compared to nonpregnant women. This review aimed to provide healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers with a comprehensive overview of the available information regarding the efficacy of vaccines in pregnant women.
SUMMARY
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. The search through the database for articles published between December 2019 and October 2021 was performed. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases for research publications published between December 2019 and October 2021. We focused on original research, case reports, case series, and vaccination side effect by authoritative health institutions. Phrases used for the Medical Subject Heading [MeSH] search included ("COVID-19" [MeSH]) or ("Vaccine" [MeSH]) and ("mRNA" [MeSH]) and ("Pregnant" [MeSH]). Eleven studies were selected and included, with a total of 46,264 pregnancies that were vaccinated with mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticle vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna during pregnancy. There were no randomized trials, and all studies were observational (prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional). The mean maternal age was 32.2 years, and 98.7% of pregnant women received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. The local and systemic adverse effects of the vaccination in pregnant women were analyzed and reported. The local adverse effects of the vaccination (at least 1 dose) such as local pain, swelling, and redness were reported in 32%, 5%, and 1%, respectively. The systemic adverse effects such as fatigue, headaches, new onset or worsening of muscle pain, chills, fever, and joint pains were also reported in 25%, 19%, 18%, 12%, 11%, and 8%, respectively. The average birthweight was 3,452 g. Among these pregnancies, 0.03% were stillbirth and 3.68% preterm (<37 weeks) births.
KEY MESSAGES
The systemic side effect profile after administering the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine to pregnant women was similar to that in nonpregnant women. Maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality were lowered with the administration of either one or both the doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; COVID-19 Vaccines; COVID-19; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; SARS-CoV-2; mRNA Vaccines; Vaccine Efficacy
PubMed: 38432215
DOI: 10.1159/000538135 -
Hypertension in Pregnancy Dec 2024Preeclampsia (PE) is a pregnancy disorder that represents a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Preeclampsia (PE) is a pregnancy disorder that represents a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.
METHODS
This network meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO. We searched the PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov. and Embase databases for studies published from inception to the 31 of March 2023. RevMan5.3 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was used for direct meta-analysis (DMA) statistical analysis. Funnel maps, network meta-analysis (NMA), the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank the different interventions and publication bias were generated by STATA 17.0 software.
RESULTS
We included eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a total of 1192 women with PE; two studies were of high quality and six were of moderate quality. Eight interventions were addressed in the NMA. In the DMA, we found that blood pressure in the Ketanserin group were significantly higher than those in the Nicardipine group. NMA showed that blood pressure in the Dihydralazine group was significantly higher than that in the Methyldopa, Labetalol, Nicardipine and Diltiazem groups. And the blood pressure in the Labetalol group was significantly lower than that in the Nicardipine group. SUCRA values showed that Diltiazem was more effective in lowering blood pressure than other drugs looked at in this study.
CONCLUSION
According to the eight RCTs included in this study, Diltiazem was the most effective in reducing blood pressure in PE patients; Labetalol and Nicardipine also had good effects. Diltiazem is preferred for the treatment of patients with severe PE and high blood pressure.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Labetalol; Pre-Eclampsia; Diltiazem; Nicardipine; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38488570
DOI: 10.1080/10641955.2024.2329068