MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210746708 · doi:10.1111/aogs.14318

COVID‐19 pandemic and population‐level pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in general population: A living systematic review and meta‐analysis (Update#2: November 20, 2021)

2022· review· en· W4210746708 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioImpactMount Sinai HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPandemicOdds ratioPopulationPregnancyDemographyPublication biasObstetricsPediatricsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseInternal medicineEnvironmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases and reference lists of articles published up until November 20, 2021, and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period with pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method. RESULTS: Fifty-two studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 2 372 521 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 28 518 300 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (43 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.98), but not in adjusted estimates (five studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.74-1.19). This reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (29 studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.94) but not in regional/national studies (14 studies, uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.01). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (nine studies, uaOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.94) but not in induced PTB (eight studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.01). There was no difference in the odds of stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (32 studies, uaOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97-1.18 and three studies, aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86-1.63). There was an increase in mean birthweight during the pandemic period compared with the pre-pandemic period (nine studies, mean difference 21 g, 95% CI 13-30 g). The odds of maternal mortality were increased (five studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26); however, only unadjusted estimates were available, and the result was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no statistically significant difference in stillbirths between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.260 · 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