Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection Burden and Epidemiologic Risk Factors in Countries With Universal Screening
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection is the most common congenital infection and the leading acquired cause of developmental disabilities and sensorineural deafness, yet a reliable assessment of the infection burden is lacking. Objectives: To estimate the birth prevalence of cCMV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs), characterize the rate by screening methods, and delineate associated risk factors of the infection. Data Sources: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from January 1, 1960, to March 1, 2021, and a total of 1322 studies were identified. Study Selection: Studies that provided data on the prevalence of cCMV derived from universal screening of infants younger than 3 weeks were included. Targeted screening studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Extraction was performed independently by 3 reviewers. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Metaregression was conducted to evaluate the association of sociodemographic characteristics, maternal seroprevalence, population-level HIV prevalence, and screening methods with the prevalence of cCMV. Main Outcomes and Measures: Birth prevalence of cCMV ascertained through universal screening of infants younger than 3 weeks for CMV from urine, saliva, or blood samples. Results: Seventy-seven studies comprising 515 646 infants met the inclusion criteria from countries representative of each World Bank income level. The estimated pooled overall prevalence of cCMV was 0.67% (95% CI, 0.54%-0.83%). The pooled birth prevalence of cCMV was 3-fold greater in LMICs (1.42%; 95% CI, 0.97%-2.08%; n = 23 studies) than in HICs (0.48%; 95% CI, 0.40%-0.59%, n = 54 studies). Screening methods with blood samples demonstrated lower rates of cCMV than urine or saliva samples (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.66). Higher maternal CMV seroprevalence (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.28), higher population-level HIV prevalence (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40), lower socioeconomic status (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 2.05-4.47), and younger mean maternal age (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92, older age was associated with lower rates) were associated with higher rates of cCMV. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, LMICs appeared to incur the most significant infection burden. Lower rates of cCMV were reported by studies using only blood or serum as a screening method.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle