Anti-retroviral Therapy and Pregnancy Outcomes in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite significant efforts to understand adverse pregnancy outcome in women receiving Antiretroviral Therapy (ART), ART-related adverse birth outcomes are still poorly understood. We systematically review ART-related adverse birth outcomes among HIV-infected pregnant women; we also review the covariates associated with adverse birth outcomes in the aforementioned group. METHODS: The main source for our systematic review was electronic bibliographic databases. Databases such as MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and AIDSLINE were searched. Furthermore, search engines such as Google and Google Scholar were specifically searched for gray literature. Methodological quality of available literature was assessed using the Newcastle - Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale & M. Hewitt guideline. We examined a total of 1,124 papers and reviewed the studies using the PICOT criteria which stands for Patient (population), Intervention (or "Exposure"), Comparison, Outcome and Type of study. Finally, 32 methodologically fit studies were retained and included in our review. RESULTS: Frequently observed adverse birth outcomes included low birth weight (LBW), Preterm Birth (PB), Small for Gestational Age (SGA), while still birth and congenital anomalies were infrequent. Type of regimen such as Protease Inhibitor (PI) based regimens and timing of initiation of ART are some of the factors associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Covariates principally included malnutrition and other co-morbidities such as malaria and HIV. CONCLUSIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS: There is growing evidence in published literature suggesting that ART might be causing adverse birth outcomes among pregnant women in developing countries. There is a need to consider regimen types for HIV-infected pregnant women. There is need to design large cohort studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".