British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 1995
A randomised double blind placebo controlled trial of fish oil in high risk pregnancy.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Onwude J L, Lilford R J, Hjartardottir H, Staines A, Tuffnell D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether n-3 fatty acid (EPA/DCHA) prophylaxis is beneficial in high risk pregnancies.
DESIGN: A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.
SETTING: Antenatal clinic of St James's University Hospital, Leeds.
SUBJECTS: Two hundred and thirty-three pregnant women at high risk of developing proteinuric or nonproteinuric pregnancy induced hypertension or asymmetrical intrauterine growth retardation.
INTERVENTION: Active treatment was 2.7 g of MaxEpa daily (1.62 g of eicosapentaenoic acid and 1.08 g of docosahexaenoic acid). Placebo were matching air-filled capsules.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence of proteinuric, nonproteinuric pregnancy induced hypertension or birthweight < 3rd centile.
RESULTS: There was no difference in an intention to treat analysis between the placebo and active treatment groups for occurrence of proteinuric pregnancy induced hypertension (relative risk (RR) = 0.88; 95% CI 0.47-1.66), nonproteinuric pregnancy induced hypertension (RR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.48-1.64), birthweight < 3rd centile (RR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.48-1.64), or the duration of pregnancy (difference of mean durations = 0.1 days; 95% CI -4.8 to 4.9 days). Analyses stratified by use of tobacco, and analyses excluding known major protocol violators gave essentially identical results.
CONCLUSION: There is no evidence from this study for any useful effect of fish oil supplementation for women at high risk of adverse outcomes from a pregnancy, but a small protective effect remains a possibility.
DESIGN: A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.
SETTING: Antenatal clinic of St James's University Hospital, Leeds.
SUBJECTS: Two hundred and thirty-three pregnant women at high risk of developing proteinuric or nonproteinuric pregnancy induced hypertension or asymmetrical intrauterine growth retardation.
INTERVENTION: Active treatment was 2.7 g of MaxEpa daily (1.62 g of eicosapentaenoic acid and 1.08 g of docosahexaenoic acid). Placebo were matching air-filled capsules.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence of proteinuric, nonproteinuric pregnancy induced hypertension or birthweight < 3rd centile.
RESULTS: There was no difference in an intention to treat analysis between the placebo and active treatment groups for occurrence of proteinuric pregnancy induced hypertension (relative risk (RR) = 0.88; 95% CI 0.47-1.66), nonproteinuric pregnancy induced hypertension (RR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.48-1.64), birthweight < 3rd centile (RR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.48-1.64), or the duration of pregnancy (difference of mean durations = 0.1 days; 95% CI -4.8 to 4.9 days). Analyses stratified by use of tobacco, and analyses excluding known major protocol violators gave essentially identical results.
CONCLUSION: There is no evidence from this study for any useful effect of fish oil supplementation for women at high risk of adverse outcomes from a pregnancy, but a small protective effect remains a possibility.