jagomart
digital resources
picture1_Thermal Analysis Pdf 10817 | Mgso4 For Ppi(2) | Ilmu Kesehatan


 171x       Tipe PDF       Ukuran file 0.20 MB    


File: Thermal Analysis Pdf 10817 | Mgso4 For Ppi(2) | Ilmu Kesehatan
magnesiummaintenancetherapyforpreventingpreterm birth after threatened preterm labour review crowther ca moorev thisisareprintofacochranereview preparedandmaintained bythecochranecollaborationandpublishedinthecochranelibrary 2007 issue 2 http www thecochranelibrary com magnesiummaintenancetherapy forpreventingpreterm birth after threatened preterm labour review 1 copyright ...

icon picture PDF Filetype PDF | Diposting 01 Jul 2022 | 3 thn lalu
Berikut sebagian tangkapan teks file ini.
Geser ke kiri pada layar.
                           Magnesiummaintenancetherapyforpreventingpreterm
                                     birth after threatened preterm labour (Review)
                                                                      Crowther CA, MooreV
                      ThisisareprintofaCochranereview,preparedandmaintained byTheCochraneCollaborationandpublishedinTheCochraneLibrary
                      2007, Issue 2
                                                                     http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
                      Magnesiummaintenancetherapy forpreventingpreterm birth after threatened preterm labour (Review)                                 1
                      Copyright©2007 The CochraneCollaboration.Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd
                                                                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                     1
                                  PLAINLANGUAGESUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                         1
                                  BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                       2
                                  OBJECTIVES                  .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             2
                                  CRITERIAFORCONSIDERINGSTUDIESFORTHISREVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                           2
                                  SEARCHMETHODSFORIDENTIFICATIONOFSTUDIES                                                                    .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             2
                                  METHODSOFTHEREVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                         3
                                  DESCRIPTIONOFSTUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                       3
                                  METHODOLOGICALQUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                        3
                                  RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                    3
                                  DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                     4
                                  AUTHORS’CONCLUSIONS                                    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             4
                                  NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                    5
                                  POTENTIALCONFLICTOFINTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                        5
                                  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                  .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             5
                                  SOURCESOFSUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                       5
                                  REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                     5
                                  TABLES             .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             7
                                          Characteristics of included studies                    .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             7
                                          Characteristics of excluded studies                    .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             8
                                  ANALYSES                .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             8
                                          Comparison 01. Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment                                                       .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             8
                                          Comparison 02. Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment                                                     .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             9
                                  INDEXTERMS                       .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             9
                                  COVERSHEET                       .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             9
                                  GRAPHSANDOTHERTABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                        10
                                          Analysis 01.01. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 01                                                                                          10
                                                  Gestational age at delivery (weeks) .                      .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .
                                          Analysis 01.02. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 02 Pre-term                                                                                 11
                                                  birth .        .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .    .   .
                                          Analysis 01.03. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 03 Perinatal                                                                                12
                                                  mortality          .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .
                                          Analysis 01.05. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 05 Maternal                                                                                 12
                                                  readmission for threatened preterm labour                           .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .
                                          Analysis 01.07. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 07                                                                                          13
                                                  Respiratory distress syndrome                     .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .
                                          Analysis 01.09. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 09                                                                                          13
                                                  Periventricular haemorrhage .                     .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .
                                          Analysis 01.11. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 11 Maternal                                                                                 14
                                                  side-effects .          .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .    .   .
                                          Analysis 01.12. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 12 Mother’s                                                                                 15
                                                  perception of therapy                .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .
                                          Analysis 01.13. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 13 Neonatal                                                                                 16
                                                  intensive care unit admissions                    .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .
                                          Analysis 01.14. Comparison 01 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 14 Neonatal                                                                                 16
                                                  length of stay (days) .              .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .    .   .
                                          Analysis 02.01. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 01 Gestational                                                                                17
                                                  age at delivery (weeks) .                .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .    .   .
                                          Analysis 02.02. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 02 Preterm                                                                                    17
                                                  birth .        .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .    .   .
                                  Magnesiummaintenancetherapy forpreventingpreterm birth after threatened preterm labour (Review)                                                                                                            i
                                  Copyright©2007 The CochraneCollaboration.Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd
                             Analysis 02.03. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 03 Perinatal                      18
                                  mortality     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   .  .
                             Analysis 02.05. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 05 Maternal                       19
                                  readmission for threatened preterm labour      .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   .  .
                             Analysis 02.09. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 09                                19
                                  Periventricular haemorrhage .      .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   .  .
                             Analysis 02.11. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 11 Maternal                       20
                                  side-effects .   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   .  .
                             Analysis 02.12. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 12 Mother’s                       22
                                  perception of therapy     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   .  .
                             Analysis 02.13. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 13 Neonatal                       22
                                  intensive care unit admissions     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   .  .
                             Analysis 02.14. Comparison 02 Magnesium maintenance therapy versus alternative treatment, Outcome 14 Neonatal                       23
                                  length of stay (days) .   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   .  .
                        Magnesiummaintenancetherapy forpreventingpreterm birth after threatened preterm labour (Review)                                           ii
                        Copyright©2007 The CochraneCollaboration.Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd
                      Magnesiummaintenancetherapyforpreventingpreterm
                      birth after threatened preterm labour (Review)
                      Crowther CA, Moore V
                      This record should be cited as:
                      Crowther CA, Moore V. Magnesium maintenance therapy for preventing preterm birth after threatened preterm labour. Cochrane
                      Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000940. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000940.
                      This version first published online: 26 January 1998 in Issue 1, 1998.
                      Date of most recent substantive amendment: 19 November 1997
                                                                             ABSTRACT
                      Background
                      Magnesiummaintenancetherapyisoneofthetypesoftocolytictherapyusedafteranepisodeofthreatenedpretermlabour(andusually
                      an initial dose of tocolytic therapy) in an attempt to prevent the onset of further preterm contractions.
                      Objectives
                      To assess the effects of magnesium maintenance therapy on preventing preterm birth after threatened preterm labour.
                      Search strategy
                      WesearchedtheCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (August 2002).
                      Selection criteria
                      Randomised controlled trials of magnesium therapy given to women after threatened preterm labour.
                      Data collection and analysis
                      Trial quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers.
                      Main results
                      Three trials, which recruited 303 women, were included. Two trials were of poor quality and none included any long-term follow up
                      of infants. No differences in the incidence of preterm birth or perinatal mortality were seen when magnesium maintenance therapy
                      was compared with placebo or no treatment; or alternative therapies (ritodrine or terbutaline). The relative risk (RR) for preterm birth
                      (less than 37 weeks) for magnesium compared with placebo or no treatment was 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.51;
                      and 0.98, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.72 for magnesium compared with alternative therapies. The RR for perinatal mortality for magnesium
                      compared with placebo or no treatment, and also compared with alternative treatments, was 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 99.16. Women
                      taking magnesium preparations were less likely to report palpitations or tachycardia than women receiving alternative therapies (RR
                      0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.44) but were much more likely to experience diarrhoea (RR 10.67, 95% CI 3.35 to 33.99).
                      Authors’ conclusions
                      Thereis not enough evidence to show any difference between magnesium maintenance therapy and either placebo or no treatment, or
                      alternative therapies (ritodrine or terbutaline) in preventing preterm birth after an episode of threatened preterm labour.
                      PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
                      Magnesium, given to women after threatening to give birth too early, does not reduce preterm birth or improve the outcome for the
                      infant
                      Babies born prematurely may not survive, or may have later problems if they do survive. After other drugs have been used to try to
                      stop early labour, magnesium is used to prevent further early contractions. This review did not show that magnesium used in this way
                      helpedprevent preterm birth, but this finding is based on very few studies, and none of them looked at the infants’ later development.
                      Magnesiummaintenancetherapy forpreventingpreterm birth after threatened preterm labour (Review)                                 1
                      Copyright©2007 The CochraneCollaboration.Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Kata-kata yang terdapat di dalam file ini mungkin membantu anda melihat apakah file ini sesuai dengan yang dicari :

...Magnesiummaintenancetherapyforpreventingpreterm birth after threatened preterm labour review crowther ca moorev thisisareprintofacochranereview preparedandmaintained bythecochranecollaborationandpublishedinthecochranelibrary issue http www thecochranelibrary com magnesiummaintenancetherapy forpreventingpreterm copyright the cochranecollaboration published byjohn wiley sons ltd table of contents abstract plainlanguagesummary background objectives criteriaforconsideringstudiesforthisreview searchmethodsforidentificationofstudies methodsofthereview descriptionofstudies methodologicalquality results discussion authors conclusions notes potentialconflictofinterest acknowledgements sourcesofsupport references tables characteristics included studies excluded analyses comparison magnesium maintenance therapy versus placebo or no treatment alternative indexterms coversheet graphsandothertables analysis outcome gestational age at delivery weeks pre term perinatal mortality maternal readmission f...

no reviews yet
Please Login to review.