Hygiene interventions for prevention of cytomegalovirus infection among childbearing women: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of preventive interventions to reduce congenital cytomegalovirus transmission and infection among women of childbearing age. BACKGROUND: Congenital cytomegalovirus has been identified as the leading infectious cause of damage to the growing fetus in developed countries, including Down syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome and spina bifida. Despite the prevalence and consequences of this infection, it has a low profile and pregnant mothers are often unaware of the risks and protective behaviours related to its transmission. Women with children in daycare and nurses working with children are particularly at risk of acquiring the virus. DATA SOURCES: A computerized literature search for articles up to 1 December 2007 was performed using MEDLINE (from 1950); EMBASE (from 1980) and CINAHL (from 1982). REVIEW METHODS: Both authors independently reviewed studies that met inclusion criteria and assigned a quality rating determined by the number of validity criteria met. Differences were discussed until consensus was reached. FINDINGS: Differences in hygiene behaviour changes were most statistically significant for pregnant, seronegative women. Although the methodological quality of the three included studies was not strong, seroconversion rates consistently decreased as cytomegalovirus education and support increased. CONCLUSION: Nurses can act as preventive agents for cytomegalovirus infection through education about hygiene precautions during antenatal care and through preventive measures in the workplace. The review findings suggest educational interventions in hygiene practices have the potential to be a feasible, large-scale, primary prevention strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".