Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Hormones, thyroid and fertility

Calciumand Pre-eclampsia incidence

Only one source here so far, and it found no clear difference in pre-eclampsia incidence.

How sure anyone can be

Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

Further research may change this.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

0.670.83 risk ratio1.04

This range crosses the no-difference line, so these numbers fit a real difference and no difference at all equally well.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

One source, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2025 · 6 studies pooled · 15,364 participants

    Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

    Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025;12(12):CD001059. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001059.pub6. PMID:41330480.

    This source later carried a notice: Update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 01;10:CD001059. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001059.pub5. The number below is exactly as the source gave it.

    Number reported
    0.83 risk ratio
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    0.67 to 1.04
    Source’s own words
    risk ratio for pre-eclampsia, calcium supplementation vs placebo
    Who was studied
    Pregnant
    Compared with
    placebo (all trials provided standard care)
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, one step down: imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Imprecision brought it down to Moderatethe confidence interval includes no effectReported in the abstract
    3. Ends at ModerateOne step down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    risk of bias and indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 6 studies it pooled

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • Amount taken — Not in the abstract.
  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Calcium

Three of the nine things on our list for Calcium have no reading here yet:

  • HDL cholesterol
  • LDL cholesterol
  • Parathyroid Hormone (PTH)

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.