MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415746884 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004580

Associations between epileptic seizures in pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415746884 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oladipupo Olalere, Saba Tariq, Olanike Ajijola, M. P. Koh, Katie Crabb, Amie Wilson, Anwesa Chatterjee, Mairead Black, R. Katie Morris, Matthew Bluett‐Duncan, Emily Taylor, Sereena Raju, Fatima Junaid, Rebecca Bromley, Ngawai Moss, Marta García‐Fiñana, John Craig, Amanda Wood, Annalise Weckesser, Judith Dyson, Catherine Nelson‐Piercy, Elaine Denny, Tracy Roberts, Rachel Mcneill, Shakila Thangaratinam, John Allotey

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBirmingham Biomedical Research CentreNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPregnancyEpilepsyAdverse effectMEDLINERisk assessmentRisk factorEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epileptic seizures during pregnancy may increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Socioeconomic disparities in epilepsy incidence may extend to seizure control. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between epileptic seizures during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We also evaluated the association between socioeconomic and individual-level factors and seizure occurrence. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from inception to May 2025 for observational studies on pregnant women with epileptic seizures. We compared maternal and foetal outcomes in pregnant women with and without seizures and assessed the association between seizure occurrence and socioeconomic or individual-level factors. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analyses using random effects model were performed to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). From 13,381 identified publications, 25 studies (24,596 pregnancies) are included in this analysis. In pregnant women with epilepsy, women with seizures compared to those without had increased odds of caesarean birth (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.30, p = 0.007), peripartum depression (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.65, p = 0.04), and small for gestational age baby (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.69, p = 0.03). The odds of preterm birth (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.15, p < 0.001), low birthweight (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.93, p = 0.006), and small for gestational age baby (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.74, p < 0.001) were higher in women with seizures compared to women without epilepsy. The risk of seizures was greater in pregnant women with epilepsy with low income compared to those with higher income (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02, p < 0.001), and in women with focal epilepsy compared to those with generalised epilepsy (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.20, p < 0.001). The number of studies for some outcomes was small, limiting subgroup analyses and detection of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Epileptic seizures are associated with increased risks of adverse maternal and foetal outcomes. Risk assessment to identify women with epilepsy at highest risk of seizures is needed to optimise care.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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 score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207