1990
DOI: 10.1097/00002030-199010000-00009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of maternal HIV infection on obstetrical and early neonatal outcome

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
35
1

Year Published

1993
1993
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
35
1
Order By: Relevance
“…HIV exposure during pregnancy has been associated with poor pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth or LBW compared with nonexposed children [19,[37][38][39][40]. In this study, prevalence of preterm birth was higher in HEU children compared with HIV-unexposed 6 AIDS 2017, Vol 00 No 00 children, though data on gestational age at the time of delivery were only available in one-third of the HEU infants.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…HIV exposure during pregnancy has been associated with poor pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth or LBW compared with nonexposed children [19,[37][38][39][40]. In this study, prevalence of preterm birth was higher in HEU children compared with HIV-unexposed 6 AIDS 2017, Vol 00 No 00 children, though data on gestational age at the time of delivery were only available in one-third of the HEU infants.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Studies from Kenya also showed that HIV-infected women were 3 times more likely to deliver a LBW baby in the presence of HIV-related symptoms and lower CD4 level [33,34]. The Univariate analysis in this study indicated that advanced maternal WHO clinical stage, especially in advanced WHO clinical stage III (p ≤ 0.0001) and stage IV (p ≤ 0.0001) were associated with LBW and PD, even though this variable didn't persist in the multivariate analysis .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the 20 studies included in Fisher and colleagues' meta-analysis, 19 were retained for inclusion in the present study (Ao, Sam, Masenga, Seage, & Kapiga, 2006;Ayisi et al, 2000;Braddick et al, 1990;Demissie, Amre, & Tsega, 1996;Fritz et al, 2002;Hargreaves et al, 2002;Kapiga, Lyamuya, Lwihula, & Hunter, 1998;Kapiga et al, 2002;Kapiga et al, 2006;Lewis et al, 2005;Mbulaiteye et al, 2000;Mnyika, Klepp, Kvåle, & Ole-King'ori, 1996;Ndina-Achola et al, 1997;Sebit et al, 2003;Simbayi et al, 2004;Talbot et al, 2002;Tengia-Kessey, Msamanga, & Moshino, 1998;Zablotska et al, 2006;Zuma, Gouws, Williams, & Lurie, 2003) and one (Gilgen, Williams, & Campbell, 2000) was excluded for failing to meet the inclusion criteria specified below (i.e., it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal). An additional eight nonoverlapping studies published prior to 2009 were identified from our previous narrative review (Allen et al, 1992;Bassett et al, 1996;Clift et al, 2003;Dunkle et al, 2004;Fisher, Cook, Sam, & Kapiga, 2008;Msuya et al, 2006;St.…”
Section: Methods Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The meta-analysis was re-run excluding these three studies and there was effectively no change in the pooled OR estimate (1.61, 95% CI: 1.38-1.88). Additionally, the cumulative meta-analysis was executed in the absence of several outliers visible in Figure 1 (OR > 3.0) (Allen et al, 1992;Braddick et al, 1990;Fisher et al, 2008;Norris et al, 2009;Seme et al, 2005;Talbot et al, 2000). These studies were not allocated a significant amount of weight and the pooled OR estimate again changed very little (1.54, 95% CI: 1.40-1.70).…”
Section: Sensitivity Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%