Risk factors for premature rupture of membranes in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To identify risk factors for premature rupture of membranes (PROM) in pregnant women. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) and China Biology Medicine Disc were searched from inception to October 2022. Eligibility criteria Cross-sectional, case–control and cohort studies published in English or Chinese that reported the risk factors for PROM were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and American Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality tools. Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 software, and heterogeneity was assessed using χ 2 tests and I 2 statistics. The sensitivity analyses included a methodological transition between fixed-effect and random-effect models and the systematic stepwise exclusion of studies. Results A total of 21 studies involving 18 174 participants with 18 risk factors were included. The significant risk factors were low Body Mass Index (BMI) (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.61), interpregnancy interval (IPI) <2 years (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.98 to 4.50), previous abortion (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.14), previous preterm birth (OR 5.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 9.50), prior PROM (OR 3.95, 95% CI 2.48 to 6.28), history of caesarean section (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 5.43), gestational hypertension (OR 3.84, 95% CI 2.36 to 6.24), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.23), abnormal vaginal discharge (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.27), reproductive tract infection (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.75), malpresentation (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.78 to 2.85) and increased abdominal pressure (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.97). The sensitivity analysis showed that the pooled estimates were stable. Conclusions This meta-analysis indicated that low BMI, IPI <2 years, previous abortion, previous preterm birth, prior PROM, history of caesarean section, gestational hypertension, GDM, abnormal vaginal discharge, reproductive tract infection, malpresentation and increased abdominal pressure might be associated with a greater risk of PROM. Associations between smoking status, short cervical length, fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and PROM require further investigation. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022381485.
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".