SynthesisBirth defects research2025
Cabergoline Use and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Birth defects research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chinese consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of prolactinomas (2025 edition).Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Review
- A real-world pharmacovigilance analysis of cardiac, endocrine, and neurological adverse events associated with cabergoline: a disproportionality study.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Case Report: Management of a pregnancy complicated by a symptomatic macroprolactinoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLack of available expert guidelines leads clinicians to interrupt cabergoline treatment upon confirmation of pregnancy and consider switching to bromocriptine, which is more commonly used during pregnancy but is poorly tolerated.
objectiveThe objective of this review was to evaluate pregnancy outcomes, primarily major malformations and spontaneous abortions, after pregnancy exposure to cabergoline during the first trimester compared to pregnancy exposure to other comparators or no treatment.
methodsAn Embase, Pubmed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov search was performed. Full articles published before October 27, 2022, and evaluating the effect of cabergoline on major malformations and spontaneous abortions were considered for inclusion in the review. Search results were manually screened and selected by two independent reviewers.
resultsTotally, 2186 records were identified. After removal of duplicates and screening of abstracts, 65 full-text articles were consulted. Thirty articles corresponded to our selection criteria and were included in the systematic review. This review identified 1662 pregnancies exposed to cabergoline. Most studies did not find an increased risk of congenital malformations or spontaneous abortions with cabergoline compared to other comparators or no treatment. Overall study quality was low, and there was high heterogeneity between studies.
conclusionThis review revealed no negative impact on major malformations and spontaneous abortions of cabergoline use in pregnancy compared to other comparators or no treatment. However, additional high-quality studies are needed to further study the safety of cabergoline use during pregnancy.
trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42021256219 (October 19, 2021).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.