P-676 Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in women with Turner Syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Study question What is the pooled risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies in women with Turner Syndrome (TS)? Summary answer TS women experience high rates of adverse outcomes. Risks are increased in egg donation pregnancies and multiple pregnancies compared to singleton spontaneous pregnancies. What is known already TS affects 1 in 2,000 live female births. The 2017 ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care of Girls and Women with Turner Syndrome’ acknowledges women with TS are at increased risk of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Several retrospective cohort studies reporting obstetric and neonatal outcomes in TS pregnancies have been published in recent years. However, these studies are often limited to a single centre cohort, within one country and thus increasing risk of bias. Overall pooled risk estimates for each outcome have yet to be reported. Study design, size, duration A prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported in line with PRISMA guidelines. Overall pooled rates of each outcome Is reported with 95% confidence interval. Pooled risk ratios comparing spontaneous and egg donation pregnancies are also reported. A comparative meta-analysis reports on dichotomous outcomes using summary risk ratio (RR) with 95%CI and on continuous outcomes using weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95%CI. Publication bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Participants/materials, setting, methods A comprehensive literature search was undertaken. Eligibility screening was conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Studies were limited to English language with no time limit. Case reports were excluded. 30 studies reporting obstetric or perinatal outcomes in pregnancies of women with TS were included in the analysis. Outcome data was extracted and tabulated using a standard proforma. Main results and the role of chance 1724 pregnancies were included. Pooled risks: Obstetric outcomes: caesarean section (62.8%)(95%CI:57-76%), pregnancy-associated hypertensive disorders (21%)(95%CI:13-29%), pre-eclampsia (10%)(95%CI:6-14%),gestational diabetes mellitus (6.0%)(95%CI:4-8%), aortic dissection (1.1%)(95%CI:0-2%), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (4.6%)(95%CI:0-7%), post-partum haemorrhage (17.9%)(95%CI:-3-37%), and maternal mortality (0.3%)(95%CI:0-1%). Perinatal outcomes: prematurity (14.1%)(95%CI:8-18%), low birthweight (25.1%)(95%CI:12-23%), and perinatal mortality (1.2%)(95%CI:0-1%). Egg-donation pregnancies yield significantly higher rates of: caesarean section (82.8% vs. 55.7%) (RR1.49) (95% CI:1.27-1.76), pregnancy-associated hypertensive disorder (33.0% vs 12.9%: p=0.001), pre-eclampsia (16.9% vs 8.2%: p=0.0023), gestational hypertension (17.9% vs 0.0%: p=0.082), low-birthweight (43.0% vs 1.9%: p<0.001) and preterm birth (17.5% vs 0.0%: p<0.001) than spontaneous pregnancies. Multiple pregnancies resulted in high rates of prematurity (70.0%), low birth-weight (73.3%) and pregnancy-associated hypertensive disorders (60.9%). Limitations, reasons for caution Most studies were retrospective and included cases from many years ago so may not be reflective of current obstetric practice and improved care. Most studies were geographically clustered in Europe and North America. Estimations of risk may therefore not be generalisable to other ethnicities and middle and lower income countries Wider implications of the findings This study quantifies the risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies in women with TS. Risk is increased further in egg donation pregnancies and strategies should aim to screen and prevent complications, particularly hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Multiple pregnancy should be avoided through use of single embryo transfer. Trial registration number N/a
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».