Prenatal education for congenital toxoplasmosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Congenital toxoplasmosis is considered a rare but potentially severe infection. Prenatal education about congenital toxoplasmosis could be the most efficient and least harmful intervention, yet its effectiveness is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prenatal education for preventing congenital toxoplasmosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (15 January 2012), PubMed (1966 to 15 January 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 15 January 2012), CINAHL (1982 to 15 January 2012), LILACS (1982 to 15 January 2012), IMEMR (1984 to 15 January 2012), and reference lists of relevant papers, reviews and websites. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of all types of prenatal education on toxoplasmosis infection during pregnancy. Cluster-randomized trials were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and study quality. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Two cluster-randomized controlled trials (involving a total of 5455 women) met the inclusion criteria. The two included trials measured the effectiveness of the intervention in different ways which meant that meta-analysis of the results was not possible One trial (432 women enrolled) conducted in Canada was judged of low methodological quality. The authors did not report measure of association but only provided P values (P less than 0.05) for all outcomes. Moreover, losses to follow-up were high (34%, 147 out of 432 women initially enrolled). The authors concluded that prenatal education can effectively change pregnant women's behavior as it increased pet, personal and food hygiene. The second trial conducted in France was also judged of low methodological quality. Losses to follow-up were high (44.5%, 2233 out of 5023 women initially enrolled) and differential (40% in the intervention group and 52% in the control group). The authors concluded that prenatal education for congenital toxoplasmoses has a significant effect on improving women's knowledge whereas it has no effect on changing women's behavior. In this trial 17/3949 pregnant women seroconverted for toxoplasmosis: 13/2591 (0.5%) in the intervention group and 4/1358 (0.3%) in the control group. The number of events was too small to reach conclusions about the effect of prenatal education on seroconversion rate during pregnancy.No other randomized trials on the effect of prenatal education on congenital toxoplasmosis rate, or toxoplasmosis seroconversion rate during pregnancy were detected. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Even though primary prevention of congenital toxoplasmosis is considered a desirable intervention, given the lack of related risks compared to secondary and tertiary prevention, its effectiveness has not been adequately evaluated. There is very little evidence from RCTs that prenatal education is effective in reducing congenital toxoplasmosis even though evidence from observational studies suggests it is. Given the lack of good evidence supporting prenatal education for congenital toxoplasmosis prevention, further RCTs are needed to confirm any potential benefits and to further quantify the impact of different sets of educational intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".