Congenital, Intrapartum and Postnatal Maternal-Fetal-Neonatal SARS-CoV-2 Infections: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is inconclusive evidence regarding congenital, intrapartum, and postnatal maternal-fetal-neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. A narrative review was conducted with the aim of guiding clinicians on the management of pregnant women with respect to congenital, intrapartum, and postnatal maternal-fetal-neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infections and breastfeeding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Dialnet, CUIDEN, Scielo, and Virtual Health Library to identify observational, case series, case reports, and randomized controlled trial studies assessing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mother to baby and/or through breastfeeding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 49 studies was included in this review, comprising 329 pregnant women and 331 neonates (two pregnant women delivered twins). The studies were performed in China (n = 26), USA (n = 7), Italy (n = 3), Iran (n = 2), Switzerland (n = 1), Spain (n = 1), Turkey (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), India (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), France (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), Honduras (n = 1), Brazil (n = 1), and Peru (n = 1). Samples from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, placenta, cervical secretion, and breastmilk were collected and analyzed. A total of 15 placental swabs gave positive results for SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA) on the fetal side of the placenta. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in seven breastmilk samples. One umbilical cord sample was positive for SARS-CoV-2. One amniotic fluid sample tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: This study presents some evidence to support the potential of congenital, intrapartum, and postnatal maternal-fetal-neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mothers should follow recommendations including wearing a facemask and hand washing before and after breastfeeding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".