MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404623995 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102935

Effect of preconception antibiotics exposure on female reproductive health and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4404623995 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Bekalu Kassie Alemu, Chi Chiu Wang, Lianchun Li, Qin Li, Yao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanxi Provincial Key Research and Development ProjectKey Research and Development Projects of Shaanxi ProvinceUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPregnancyObstetricsFamily medicineGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The preconception period is a window of opportunity to influence maternal and pregnancy outcomes. Inappropriate use of antibiotics results in gut dysbiosis and may affect host reproductive health through multiple dimensions. Animal studies demonstrate that antibiotic treatment profoundly affects ovarian functions and the estrous cycle, and it has a direct implication for infertility. Infertility was defined as the inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse. However, whether antibiotic exposure in the preconception period influences female fertility, miscarriage, and congenital malformation remains obscure and controversial. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis until April 20, 2024, was conducted by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct without restrictions to designs and language. The risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tools. The report followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relative risks (RR), odds ratios (OR), and fecundability ratios (FR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were effect size measures determined with a random effect model. Heterogeneity across included studies was assessed using I 2 , T2, and H 2 . The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42024515680. Findings Fifteen studies with a total of 1,206,583 participants were included. Preconception exposure to macrolides reduced the FR by 35% (FR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.88, P < 0.001). Sulfonamide users were also at 2.35 times (OR:2.35, 95% CI: 1.86, 2.97; P < 0.001) more risk of developing infertility. Using beta-lactams other than penicillin G reduced the odds of infertility by 64% (OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.26,0.50; P < 0.001). The possibility of infertility among quinolone users was 13% lower (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77, 0.99; P = 0.03) than non-users. Preconception antibiotics exposure increased the risk of spontaneous miscarriage by 34% (RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.53; P < 0.001). Moreover, trimethoprim intake also increased the odds of congenital malformations by 85% (OR:1.85, 95% CI: 1.54, 2.23; P < 0.001). Interpretation Preconception antibiotics exposure in females increases the risk of infertility, miscarriage, and congenital anomalies. Macrolides, sulfonamides, and trimethoprim increase the risk of infertility, spontaneous miscarriage, and congenital malformation while beta-lactams and quinolones reduce the risk. Clinicians, pregnancy planners, and health care policymakers should be warranted for pregnancy needs and success. Further clinical and mechanistic studies are required to illustrate their specific functions and cause effects. Funding Funded by Leading Discipline Development Fund (No. 403947), The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shaanxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; and The Hong Kong Obstetrical and Gynaecological Trust Fund.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207