Prenatal exposure to antibiotics and the risk of orofacial clefts: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Orofacial clefts (OFCs), including cleft lip, cleft palate and combined cleft lip and palate, are among the most common craniofacial malformations in newborns and present significant healthcare challenges. Emerging evidence has raised concerns regarding the potential impact of prenatal exposure to antibiotics on fetal development. Antibiotics prescribed during pregnancy—particularly those that cross the placental barrier—may pose teratogenic risks. Previous studies investigating the association between prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk of OFCs have yielded inconsistent results. However, no studies have yet attempted to summarise this evidence, highlighting the need for a comprehensive evaluation. This report describes a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol to retrospectively analyse the relationship between prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk of developing OFCs, focusing on the role of antibiotic type and timing of exposure. The results of such a review will hopefully provide a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence, helping to inform clinical practice and guide patient counselling regarding the use of antibiotics during pregnancy. Methods and analysis The planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines to ensure a comprehensive and systematic approach to summarising the available evidence on the topic. This study will include longitudinal cohort studies, case–control studies, and interventional trials that investigate the association between prenatal antibiotic exposure and OFCs. The search strategy will cover major databases, including CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, using tailored search terms. A team of independent assessors will screen article titles, abstracts and full texts. Any discrepancies will be resolved through discussions. Quality assessment will use the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Data extraction will focus on the study characteristics, participant details, exposure specifics and outcome measures. A random-effects meta-analysis will aggregate summary effect sizes, and heterogeneity will be assessed using I 2 and Q statistics. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review, as it relies on already published data. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations, providing critical insights into clinical practice and public health policies regarding antibiotic use during pregnancy. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024565064
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 | 0.072 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.005 |
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".