Asymptomatic vaginal Candida colonization and adverse pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: During pregnancy, vaginal colonization by Candida spp is common. Some studies suggest an association between asymptomatic vaginal Candida colonization and adverse pregnancy outcomes, but the evidence is inconsistent. This review aimed to systematically review the association between asymptomatic vaginal colonization by Candida spp and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to May 6, 2020 for published studies on vaginal Candida/yeast and pregnancy outcomes. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials that included pregnant women who were tested for asymptomatic vaginal Candida colonization and reported on adverse pregnancy outcomes were eligible. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers independently selected and extracted the data. Critical appraisal was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case-control studies and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: , 13%) in 3 studies among 5175 women. Asymptomatic vaginal Candida colonization was not associated with small for gestational age, perinatal mortality, or any other adverse pregnancy outcome. CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic vaginal Candida colonization is not associated with preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes. Previous studies reported that treatment of this microorganism reduces preterm birth rate. Our results suggest that this effect is unlikely to rely on treatment of vaginal Candida.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".