MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036012418 · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100163

Asymptomatic vaginal Candida colonization and adverse pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3036012418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heleen J. Schuster, Bastienne A. de Jonghe, Jacqueline Limpens, Andries E. Budding, Rebecca C. Painter

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioObstetricsPregnancyConfidence intervalMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialRelative riskAsymptomaticCohort studyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 We found no significant difference in preterm birth rate between Candida- positive and Candida -negative women (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.99–1.22; I 2 , 0%) in 15 studies among 33,321 women for either spontaneous preterm birth only (odds ratio, 1.13, 95% confidence interval, 0.97–1.31; I 2 , 0%) or all preterm birth (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.35; I 2 , 21%). Subgroup analyses for a treatment strategy including only studies reporting on spontaneous preterm birth did not reveal any statistically significant associations either, although the odds ratio was increased for the untreated Candida -positive women (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.90–1.81; I 2 , 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.023
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFMSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207