This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alan H. DeCherney, MD; Brian J. Koos, MD, DPhil
University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine

JAMA. 1997;278(14):1147-1148.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—We thank Dr Levine for his interest in our comments regarding calcium supplementation and pregnancy. It should be noted that our discussion was limited to articles published in 1996. Further, our cautious recommendation that calcium supplementation should be considered for pregnant women at high risk for developing preeclampsia was based on a meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials involving 2459 pregnant women.¹

In July 1997, Levine and colleagues² published the results of a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of calcium supplementation in 4589 nulliparous pregnant women. This large study failed to show the beneficial effects of calcium in reducing the incidence of preeclampsia or pregnancy-associated hypertension. It lends credence to our reservations concerning the application of results from small studies, many of which were performed in countries other than the United States to the general population in the United States.

This discussion raises an important question: What accounts for the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?