ArticleJournal of global health2026
Antenatal magnesium sulphate for preterm foetal neuroprotection in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of research studies and guidelines.
Article in Journal of global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antenatal magnesium sulphate reduces the risk of cerebral palsy (CP) for infants born very preterm. While endorsed by the World Health Organization for global implementation in 2015, studies underpinning this recommendation were conducted in high-income countries. Our objective was to systematically gather, organise, and map published research studies on the use of antenatal magnesium sulphate for preterm foetal neuroprotection in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and to obtain existing relevant national and international clinical practice guidelines from (or for) LMICs. Methods: Following scoping review methods, we searched nine databases and the websites of societies/ministries of health for relevant qualitative or quantitative studies and national or international guidelines, published from 2015, from any LMIC. We screened each publication for inclusion, and two reviewers independently extracted information. Content analysis included narrative summaries and descriptive statistics. Results: In total, 57 research studies (12 randomised controlled trials) and 25 clinical guidelines were included in the analysis. Most (n = 75) were in English, from lower-middle (n = 45) and upper-middle (n = 31) countries, and published between 2020 and 2025 (n = 60). The most common research scope was effects and/or safety (n = 38). The remaining studies focused on intervention uptake or quality improvement programmes (n = 10), mechanisms of action (n = 5), or regimen comparisons (n = 4). Short-term outcomes were common, and CP was described in only four studies. Regarding clinical guidelines, magnesium sulphate was usually included in general guidelines (n = 24), those published by professional associations (n = 18), or those published by government bodies (n = 6). After categorisation, an upper gestational limit of 32 weeks was most common (n = 18). Treatment regimens varied, commonly including a 4 g intravenous loading dose (n = 12) and a 1 g/h intravenous maintenance dose (n = 11). One in three recommended no specific regimen. Conclusions: A sizeable number of heterogeneous studies and clinical guidelines exist, primarily from middle-income countries, regarding magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection. Further context-specific research may include regimen comparisons, impact, and implementation studies, informing future updates to clinical guidelines globally. Registration: OSF 10.17605/OSF.IO/ASN67.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.