prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |31 |review
To summarize the meta-analysis, preeclampsia was reduced by about half. Increases in blood pressure, which probably isn't preeclampsia, was reduced too. In all the studies I have listed here, if you look at the average blood pressure, it went down in the women who took calcium. One of the consequent concerns I had was whether it is possible that we're just lowering blood pressure and thus reducing diagnosis or are we having an impact. The conclusion of the meta-analysis is here: that it was inexpensive, it didn’t have any risk, and so you can justify the administration of calcium to even the low risk cohort. Now this "neglible risk" statement is a really loaded statement to make in pregnancy trials. I think people said the same thing about many years ago when it was “just” estrogen they were giving women and yet twenty years later we recognize there were bad effects. This sort of chicken soup medicine, where you give it because it might help, just doesn't work in pregnancy. You need a better rationale than "it seems like it doesn't hurt."