Prevalence of Hepatitis B virus infection and its determinants among pregnant women in East Africa: Systematic review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is one of the major public health problems globally and needs an urgent response. It is one of the most responsible causes of mortality among the five hepatitis viruses, and it affects almost every class of individuals. Different studies were conducted on the prevalence of HBV among pregnant women in East African countries, but none of them showed the pooled prevalence of HBV among the pregnant women. Thus, the main objective of this study was to determine the pooled prevalence and its determinants among pregnant women in East Africa. METHODS: We searched studies using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and grey literature that were published between January 01/2020 to January 30/2024. The studies were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment scale. The random-effect (DerSimonian) model was used to determine the pooled prevalence and associated factors of HBV among pregnant women. Heterogeneity were assessed by I2 statistic, sub-group analysis, and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed by Egger test, and the analysis was done using STATA version 17. RESULT: A total of 45 studies with 35639 pregnant women were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of HBV among pregnant women in East Africa was 6.0% (95% CI: 6.0%-7.0%, I2 = 89.7%). The highest prevalence of 8% ((95% CI: 6%, 10%), I2 = 91.08%) was seen in 2021, and the lowest prevalence 5% ((95% CI: 4%, 6%) I2 = 52.52%) was observed in 2022. A pooled meta-analysis showed that history of surgical procedure (OR = 2.14 (95% CI: 1.27, 3.61)), having multiple sexual partners (OR = 3.87 (95% CI: 2.52, 5.95), history of body tattooing (OR = 2.55 (95% CI: 1.62, 4.01)), history of tooth extraction (OR = 2.09 (95% CI: 1.29, 3.39)), abortion history(OR = 2.20(95% CI: 1.38, 3.50)), history of sharing sharp material (OR = 1.88 (95% CI: 1.07, 3.31)), blood transfusion (OR = 2.41 (95% CI: 1.62, 3.57)), family history of HBV (OR = 4.87 (95% CI: 2.95, 8.05)) and history needle injury (OR = 2.62 (95% CI: 1.20, 5.72)) were significant risk factors associated with HBV infection among pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled prevalence of HBV infection among pregnant women in East Africa was an intermediate level and different across countries ranging from 1.5% to 22.2%. The result of this pooled prevalence was an indication of the need for screening, prevention, and control of HBV infection among pregnant women in the region. Therefore, early identification of risk factors, awareness creation on the mode of transmission HBV and implementation of preventive measures are essential in reducing the burden of HBV infection among pregnant women.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".