2022
DOI: 10.1002/uog.24846
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

COVID‐19 and stillbirth: direct vs indirect effect of the pandemic

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…19 In the present study, MNCWH services that were linked to clinical care provision were less disrupted than 22 Stillbirth numbers increased significantly during the first pandemic year, in line with international research done by Khalil and colleagues. 23 However, unlike many other indicators studied in this research, the noticeable spikes coincided with the first and second COVID-19 waves, rather than with lockdown periods. It is unclear whether this was due to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, or the additional strain on healthcare resources during times of increased infections and admissions.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 56%
“…19 In the present study, MNCWH services that were linked to clinical care provision were less disrupted than 22 Stillbirth numbers increased significantly during the first pandemic year, in line with international research done by Khalil and colleagues. 23 However, unlike many other indicators studied in this research, the noticeable spikes coincided with the first and second COVID-19 waves, rather than with lockdown periods. It is unclear whether this was due to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, or the additional strain on healthcare resources during times of increased infections and admissions.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 56%
“…This may be due to referral bias; however, the proportional causes of stillbirth are still likely to reflect the national rate. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have increased these numbers and gaps in care, in keeping with data from other areas of the world 33–36…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…A more recent study (2018) reports an Odds Risk of 4.51 (95% CI 2.38 to 8.55) [ 105 ]. When comparing the rate of stillbirth in infected SARS-CoV-2 women to those uninfected, an adjusted relative risk of 1.90 was reported ([aRR] = 1.90; 95% CI = 1.69–2.15) [ 26 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite this, the correlation between the newborn’s infective status and in-utero infection was not studied. A more concerning aspect is the higher rate of intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD) in case of maternal infection; its causes are still not thoroughly studied [ 26 ]. Although still premature, some studies claim long-term neurodevelopmental and ophthalmologic sequelae in infants born from mothers infected with the coronavirus during pregnancy [ 27 , 28 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%