IntroductionDespite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.MethodsWe screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsWe screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.ConclusionsThis analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol.
Objective To investigate whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in a large national dataset and to examine rates of adverse outcomes during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic period. Methods This observational cohort study included 683,905 patients, between the ages of 12-50, hospitalized for childbirth and abortion between January 1, 2019 and May 31, 2021. During the pre-pandemic period, 271,444 women were hospitalized for childbirth. During the pandemic, 308,532 women were hospitalized for childbirth and 2,708 had COVID-19. Associations between COVID-19 and in-hospital adverse perinatal outcomes were examined using propensity score-adjusted logistic regression. Results Compared to women without COVID-19, women with COVID-19 were more likely to experience both early and late preterm birth (aOR 1.38 [95% CI 1.1-1.7], aOR 1.62 [95% CI 1.3-1.7], respectively), preeclampsia (aOR 1.2 [95% CI 1.0-1.4]), disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) (aOR 1.57 [95% CI 1.1-2.2]), pulmonary edema (aOR 2.7 [95% CI 1.1- 6.3]), and need for mechanical ventilation (aOR 8.1 [95% CI 3.8-17.3]). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of stillbirth among women with (n= 16 / 2,708) and without (n= 174 / 39,562) COVID-19, p=0.257. There were no differences in adverse outcomes among women who delivered during the pandemic versus pre-pandemic period. Combined in-hospital mortality was significantly higher for women with COVID-19 (147 [95% CI 3.0 -292] vs 2.5 [95% CI 0-7.5] deaths per 100,000 women). Women diagnosed with COVID-19 within 30 days prior to hospitalization were more likely to experience early preterm birth, placental abruption, and mechanical ventilation, compared to women diagnosed with COVID-19 > 30 days prior to hospitalization for childbirth (4.0% vs. 2.4% for early preterm birth, aOR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1-2.7]; 2.2% vs. 1.2% for placental abruption, aOR 1.86 [95% CI 1.0 - 3.4]); 0.9% vs. 0.1% for mechanical ventilation, aOR 13.7 [95% CI 1.8-107.2])). Conclusion Women with COVID-19 had a higher prevalence of adverse perinatal outcomes and increased in-hospital mortality, with highest risk occurring when diagnosis was within 30 days of hospitalization, raising the possibility of a high-risk period.
Objective: Financial conflicts of interest involving the food industry have been reported to bias nutrition studies. However, some have hypothesized that independently funded studies may be biased if the authors have strong a priori beliefs about the healthfulness of a food product ('white hat bias'). The extent to which each source of bias may affect the scientific literature has not been examined. We aimed to explore this question with research involving sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) as a test case, focusing on a period during which scientific consensus about the adverse health effects of SSB emerged from uncertainty. Design: PubMed search of worldwide literature was used to identify articles related to SSB and health risks published between 2001 and 2013. Financial relationships and article conclusions were classified by independent groups of co-investigators. Associations were explored by Fischer's exact tests and regression analyses, controlling for covariates. Results: A total of 133 articles published in English met inclusion criteria. The proportion of industry-related scientific studies decreased significantly with time, from approximately 30 % at the beginning of the study period to <5 % towards the end (P = 0·003). A 'strong' or 'qualified' scientific conclusion was reached in 82 % of independent v. 7 % of industry-related SSB studies (P < 0·001). Industry-related studies were overwhelmingly more likely to reach 'weak/null' conclusions compared with independent studies regarding the adverse effects of SSB consumption on health (OR = 57·30, 95 % CI 7·12, 461·56). Conclusion: Industry-related research during a critical period appears biased to underestimate the adverse health effects of SSB, potentially delaying corrective public health action.
Background: Over the past decade there have been rapid advancements in telemedicine and mobile health technology (mHealth) and rapid increases in adoption of these technologies among OB-GYN providers. Mobile technology is routinely used in the general adult population to simplify monitoring of food intake and weight.Studies have demonstrated that weight loss achieved via remote monitoring, through use of wi-fi scales and web applications, is similar to weight loss achieved with in-person support. These technologies also increase flexibility for subjects and providers. However, there has been limited large-scale research to evaluate the use of these technologies to improve adherence to weight-gain recommendations during pregnancy.Objectives: To evaluate gestational weight gain tracking in a large low-risk obstetrical population using remote patient monitoring and a mobile phone app. Methods: Self-reported age, height, estimated due date, and weight data were extracted from low-risk, singleton pregnancies entered from 50,769 participants who were enrolled in the BabyScripts TM phone app between 1 January 2016 and 1 March 2020. After data cleaning, 15,468 participants were included the final analysis. Linear regression and Spearman's correlation were used to examine the relationships between total weight gain, rate of weight gain, body mass index (BMI), postpartum weight loss, and app engagement. Results:The average weight gain in the first, second, and third trimester were 0.09 � 1.8 kg, 4.2 � 3.3 kg, and 3.9 � 3.9 kg, respectively. The average rate of weight gain per week for the second and third trimesters were 0.5 � 0.4 kg/wk and 0.6 � 0.8 kg/wk, respectively. Participants with higher initial BMI had slower rate of weight gain than those with lower initial BMI (r = −0.24, r = −0.05, for second and third trimester, respectively). Overall, 21.4% of participants met the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) recommendation for total weight gain during pregnancy. Patients who were highly engaged with the mobile app had increased adherence to the IOM guidelines (29.8% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001). A larger proportion of highly engagedThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.