MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415734497 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-097198

Landscape analysis of pregnancy exposure registries in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

2025· article· en· W4415734497 on OpenAlexaff
Niranjan Bhat, Sophie Knudson, Rahmeh AbuShweimeh, Hilma Nakambale, Jessica Mooney, Nancy Salts, Ushma Mehta, Esperança Sevene, Deshayne B. Fell, Smaragda Lamprianou, Shanthi Pal, Andy Stergachis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPregnancyProtocol (science)EpidemiologyPublic healthMEDLINEHealth services research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Drug and vaccine safety information relevant to pregnant individuals is typically insufficient, especially so for persons living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Pregnancy exposure registries (PERs) and similar systems are used to monitor medical products safety. A better understanding of the landscape of PERs in LMICs can support medicines regulatory system strengthening and preparation for new vaccine and drug introductions. OBJECTIVES: To identify PERs and related health data collection platforms in LMICs that systematically record pregnancy exposures to medical products and pregnancy outcomes to inform how future efforts, such as new vaccine introductions and treatment programmes, can better support maternal populations in these countries. DESIGN: Scoping review based on methodology outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute manual for scoping reviews. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Global Index Medicus in June 2022, and key informants via online survey in July 2022 and interviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible resources included registries, surveillance systems and databases that collect information on exposures to medical products during pregnancy and on subsequent maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes in populations located entirely or partially in LMICs. Eligible records were published from January 2000 through June 2022. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Search results were screened and data extracted using a standardised form by two independent reviewers. Instances of discordance were resolved by a third reviewer. Identified systems were categorised by resource type. RESULTS: A total of 7515 records from electronic searches were screened, with 396 selected for full-text review and 47 additional records obtained from other sources. From these, 45 data collection systems located in African, Asian and Latin American LMICs were identified, with 36 currently in operation. These resources were grouped into six categories based on structure and approach and summarised according to key features, strengths and weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified several resources in LMICs dedicated to drug and vaccine safety in pregnancy, but findings indicate that more investment will be needed to ensure such efforts are widespread and sustainable. Understanding the current landscape of such resources in these settings is an important step towards improving safe, world-wide access to life-saving interventions for pregnant populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol for this review has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FU5AT).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207