MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401360269 · doi:10.1111/aogs.14881

Does <scp>HPV</scp> vaccination during periconceptional or gestational period increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes?—An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis based on timing of vaccination

2024· review· en· W4401360269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiawei Zhang, Zhirun Lian, Xiaoou Xue, Yuying Zhu, Nian Yu Huang, Wei Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisVaccinationPregnancyObstetricsGestational periodGestationAdverse effectGestational agePeriod (music)PediatricsImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is crucial in preventing cervical cancer, and a significant number of women in 135 countries worldwide may have unknowingly received the vaccine during peri-pregnancy or pregnancy due to a lack of regular pregnancy testing. Previous studies on the safety of pregnancy outcomes with vaccination before and after pregnancy have not reached definitive conclusions. Thus, we subdivided the vaccination time frame and conducted an updated study to further examine whether exposure to the HPV vaccine during pregnancy or the periconceptional period increases the likelihood of adverse pregnancy outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical trials and cohort studies published before August 1, 2023, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool were adopted to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. In addition, the quality assessment was carried out using the Review Manager 5.4 Software, and a meta-analysis was conducted using the Stata 16 Software. RESULTS: Eleven studies were located. The results showed that receiving 4vHPV during the periconceptional or gestational period had no relationship with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, preterm birth, birth defects, small for gestational age, and ectopic pregnancy. Neither receiving 2vHPV nor 9vHPV was associated with a higher risk of stillbirth, preterm birth, birth defects, small for gestational age, and ectopic pregnancy; however, receiving 2vHPV during the period from 45 days before last menstrual period (LMP) to LMP and 9vHPV during the period from 90 days before LMP to 45 days after LMP seemed to be related to an increased risk of spontaneous abortion (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.04-2.45, RR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.28-3.24). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the likelihood of an elevated risk of spontaneous abortion caused by HPV vaccination during the periconceptional or gestational period could not be completely ruled out. Given the lack of evidence, further research is needed to examine the effect of HPV vaccination on spontaneous abortion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.042
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207