MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039687670 · doi:10.3390/jcm9072035

The Impact of Severe Maternal Morbidity on Perinatal Outcomes in High Income Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· article· en· W3039687670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tesfaye Setegn Mengistu, Jessica Turner, Christopher Flatley, Jane Fox, Sailesh Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisHigh income countriesIntensive care medicineDeveloping countryInternal medicineEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While there is clear evidence that severe maternal morbidity (SMM) contributes significantly to poor maternal health outcomes, limited data exist on its impact on perinatal outcomes. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the association between SMM and adverse perinatal outcomes in high-income countries (HICs). We searched for full-text publications in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus databases. Studies that reported data on the association of SMM and adverse perinatal outcomes, either as a composite or individual outcome, were included. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and performed quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. We used random-effects modelling to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. We also assessed the risk of publication bias and statistical heterogeneity using funnel plots and Higgins I2, respectively. We defined sub-groups of SMM as hemorrhagic disorders, hypertensive disorders, cardiovascular disorders, hepatic disorders, renal disorders, and thromboembolic disorders. Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as preterm birth (before 37 weeks gestation), small for gestational age (SGA) (birth weight (BW) < 10th centile for gestation), low birthweight (LBW) (BW < 2.5 kg), Apgar score < 7 at 5 min, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, stillbirth and perinatal death (stillbirth and neonatal deaths up to 28 days). A total of 35 studies consisting of 38,909,426 women were included in the final analysis. SMMs associated with obstetric hemorrhage (OR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.55–4.58), severe hypertensive disorders (OR 6.79, 95% CI: 6.06–7.60), hepatic (OR 3.19, 95% CI: 2.46–4.13) and thromboembolic disorders (OR 2.40, 95% CI: 1.67–3.46) were significantly associated with preterm birth. SMMs from hypertensive disorders (OR 2.86, 95% CI: 2.51–3.25) or thromboembolic disorders (OR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.09–1.99) were associated with greater odds of having SGA infant. Women with severe hemorrhage had increased odds of LBW infant (OR 2.31, 95% CI: 1.57–3.40). SMMs from obstetric hemorrhage (OR 4.16, 95% CI: 2.54–6.81) or hypertensive disorders (OR 4.61, 95% CI: 1.17–18.20) were associated with an increased odds of low 5-min Apgar score and NICU admission (Severe obstetric hemorrhage: OR 3.34, 95% CI: 2.26–4.94 and hypertensive disorders: OR 3.63, 95% CI: 2.63–5.02, respectively). Overall, women with SMM were 4 times more likely to experience stillbirth (OR 3.98, 95% CI: 3.12–7.60) compared to those without SMM with cardiovascular disease (OR 15.2, 95% CI: 1.29–180.60) and thromboembolic disorders (OR 9.43, 95% CI: 4.38–20.29) conferring greatest risk of this complication. The odds of neonatal death were significantly higher in women with SMM (OR 3.98, 95% CI: 2.44–6.47), with those experiencing hemorrhagic (OR 7.33, 95% CI: 3.06–17.53) and hypertensive complications (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 1.78–5.07) at highest risk. Overall, SMM was also associated with higher odds of perinatal death (OR 4.74, 95% CI: 2.47–9.12) mainly driven by the increased risk in women experiencing severe obstetric hemorrhage (OR 6.18, 95% CI: 2.55–14.96). Our results highlight the importance of mitigating the impact of SMM not only to improve maternal health but also to ameliorate its consequences on perinatal outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207