Our results contrast with what is, to our knowledge, the only previous systematic review that examined the question of untreated depression because we found significant risks of 2 key perinatal outcomes, preterm birth and low birth weight. These are important results for pregnant women and clinicians to take into account in the decision-making process around depression treatment.

Background Aetiological data for neonatal infections are essential to inform policies and programme strategies, but such data are scarce from sub-Saharan Africa. We therefore completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available data from the African continent since 1980, with a focus on regional differences in aetiology and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the past decade (2008-18). Methods We included data for microbiologically confirmed invasive bacterial infection including meningitis and AMR among neonates in sub-Saharan Africa and assessed the quality of scientific reporting according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for Newborn Infection (STROBE-NI) checklist. We calculated pooled proportions for reported bacterial isolates and AMR. Findings We included 151 studies comprising data from 84 534 neonates from 26 countries, almost all of which were hospital-based. Of the 82 studies published between 2008 and 2018, insufficient details were reported regarding most STROBE-NI items. Regarding culture positive bacteraemia or sepsis, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella spp, and Escherichia coli accounted for 25% (95% CI 21-29), 21% (16-27), and 10% (8-10) respectively. For meningitis, the predominant identified causes were group B streptococcus 25% (16-33), Streptococcus pneumoniae 17% (9-6), and S aureus 12% (3-25). Resistance to WHO recommended β-lactams was reported in 614 (68%) of 904 cases and resistance to aminoglycosides in 317 (27%) of 1176 cases. Interpretation Hospital-acquired neonatal infections and AMR are a major burden in Africa. More population-based neonatal infection studies and improved routine surveillance are needed to improve clinical care, plan health systems approaches, and address AMR. Future studies should be reported according to standardised reporting guidelines, such as STROBE-NI, to aid comparability and reduce research waste.

No abstract

Background Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus and subsequent COVID‐19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID‐19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS‐CoV‐2. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID‐19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes. We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty‐two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty‐nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two‐month follow‐up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available. This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID‐19, severe and critical COVID‐19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO‐approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO‐approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all‐cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high‐certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID‐19 High‐certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA‐1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP‐CorV (Sinopharm‐Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVI...

BackgroundProbiotics are living microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit. It has been speculated that probiotics might help prevent preterm birth, but in two previous systematic reviews possible major increases in this risk have been suggested. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women taking probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics.MethodsWe searched six electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science’s Core collection and BIOSIS Preview) up to September 2016 and contacted authors for additional data. We included randomized controlled trials in which women with a singleton pregnancy received a probiotic, prebiotic or synbiotic intervention. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a piloted form and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool the results.ResultsWe identified 2574 publications, screened 1449 non-duplicate titles and abstracts and read 160 full text articles. The 49 publications that met our inclusion criteria represented 27 studies. No study used synbiotics, one used prebiotics and the rest used probiotics. Being randomized to take probiotics during pregnancy neither increased nor decreased the risk of preterm birth < 34 weeks (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.29–3.64, I2 0%, 1017 women in 5 studies), preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71–1.63, I2 0%, 2484 women in 11 studies), or most of our secondary outcomes, including gestational diabetes mellitus.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that taking probiotics or prebiotics during pregnancy either increases or decreases the risk of preterm birth or other infant and maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes.Trial registrationWe prospectively published the protocol for this study in the PROSPERO database (CRD42016048129).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-017-1629-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Recent progesterone trials call for an update of previous syntheses of interventions to prevent preterm birth.Objectives To compare the relative effects of different types and routes of administration of progesterone, cerclage, and pessary at preventing preterm birth in at-risk women overall and in specific populations.Search strategy We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science up to 1 January 2018.Selection criteria We included randomised trials of progesterone, cerclage or pessary for preventing preterm birth in at-risk singleton pregnancies.Data collection and analysis We used a piloted data extraction form and performed Bayesian random-effects network metaanalyses with 95% credibility intervals (CrI), as well as pairwise meta-analyses, rating the quality of the evidence using GRADE.Main results We included 40 trials (11 311 women). In at-risk women overall, vaginal progesterone reduced preterm birth <34 (OR 0.43, 95% CrI 0.20-0.81) and <37 weeks (OR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.34-0.74), and neonatal death (OR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20-0.83). In women with a previous preterm birth, vaginal progesterone reduced preterm birth <34 (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.68) and <37 weeks (OR 0.43, 95% CrI 0.23-0.74), and 17ahydroxyprogesterone caproate reduced preterm birth <37 weeks (OR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.27-0.95) and neonatal death (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.95). In women with a short cervix (≤25 mm), vaginal progesterone reduced preterm birth <34 weeks (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.84). ConclusionsVaginal progesterone was the only intervention with consistent effectiveness for preventing preterm birth in singleton atrisk pregnancies overall and in those with a previous preterm birth.

Vaginal progesterone may be beneficial in twin pregnancies, but not 17-OHPC, cerclage, or pessary.

No abstract