MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172762756

Prevalence and risk-factors of COVID-19 in pregnancy: Living systematic review and metaanalysis

2021· article· en· W3172762756 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Archana Dixit, Deqi Zhou, Jameela Sheikh, Henry Lawson, Tania Kew, Kazem Ansari, Rishab Balaji, Anna Clavé Llavall, Megan LH Yap, Luke Debenham, Dyuti Coomar, Mingli Yuan, Xiaoping Qiu, E. Stalings, John Allotey, Mercedes Bonet, Javier Zamora, Shakila Thangaratinam

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINECochrane LibraryMeta-analysisData extractionPopulationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicineEnvironmental healthDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Since the first report of COVID-19 in December 2019, there have been significant concerns regarding the effects of the disease on pregnant and recently pregnant women. Quantifying prevalence, and identifying risk factors for severe COVID-19 in this population is key to planning and providing effective clinical maternal care. Objectives To identify rates of COVID-19 amongst pregnant and recently pregnant women and to identify maternal risk factors for severe COVID-19 and worsening clinical outcomes. Design To address the objectives using the developing evidence base we are using a 'Living systematic review' study design. Methods A systematic search of various databases and sources was conducted, including: Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO COVID-19 database, CNKI, Wanfang databases, preprint servers, social media, reference lists of guidelines and included studies until the 6th of October 2020. Quality assessment of prevalence studies was done using the risk of bias tool by Hoy et al. and comparative cohorts using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Data extraction was completed with a pre-piloted form by two independent reviewers. The analysis is undertaken monthly and findings are regularly updated. Results are disseminated through our website: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/who-collabora ting-centre/pregcov/index.aspx. The living systematic review process and collated database has given rise to distinct review questions, and the authors of this focused on prevalence and maternal risk factors. Random effects meta-analysis was used to determine prevalence of COVID-19 and the maternal risk factors associated with severe COVID-19. Results 192 studies were included. Overall, 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 12%;73 studies, 67 271 women) of pregnant and recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital for any reason were diagnosed as having suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Increased maternal age (1.82, 1.27 to 2.63;I2 = 30.1%;7 studies;3561 women), high body mass index (2.37, 1.83 to 3.07;I2 = 0%;6 studies;3380 women), pre-existing maternal comorbidity (1.81, 1.49 to 2.20;I2 = 0%;3 studies;2634 women), chronic hypertension (2.0, 1.14 to 3.48;I2 = 0%;2 studies;858 women), pre-existing diabetes (2.12, 1.62 to 2.78;I2 = 0%;3 studies;3333 women), and pre-eclampsia (4.21, 1.26 to 14.0;I2 = 0%;4 studies;274 women) were associated with severe COVID-19 in pregnancy. Conclusions 1 in 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital are estimated to have COVID-19. Pre-existing co-morbidities, chronic hypertension, pre-eclampsia, pre-existing diabetes, high maternal age, and high BMI are risk factors for severe COVID-19.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Obstetrics and GynaecologySame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207