MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417216382 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000001450

Cytomegalovirus Infection in Pregnancy: A Comparative Review of Guidelines

2025· review· en· W4417216382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aikaterini Raptopoulou, Eirini Boureka, Anastasios Liberis, Georgios Michos, Ioannis Kalogiannidis, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Ιoannis Tsakiridis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytomegalovirus infectionCytomegalovirusCytomegalovirus infectionsInfection controlHygieneViral infection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in pregnancy is the most common viral cause of congenital infection and is associated with serious sequelae. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review and compare the recommendations from published guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and management prevention of CMV infection during pregnancy, as well as neonatal management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A descriptive review of guidelines from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, and the European Congenital Infection Initiative (ECCI) on CMV infection in pregnancy was conducted. RESULTS: There is a consensus on the importance of prevention, whereas all guidelines underline that the severity of fetal infection results mainly from primary maternal infection occurring during the early periconceptional period or first trimester of pregnancy. Controversy exists regarding universal screening for CMV, with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stating against it, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada recommending testing for CMV early for women at high-risk only in areas where avidity testing is available, and ECCI recommending routine screening up to 16 weeks of pregnancy. Moreover, there is relative consensus on the diagnosis of maternal infection, either with CMV immunoglobulin G seroconversion or with positive immunoglobulin M CMV in combination with low immunoglobulin G avidity, with ECCI recommending only the latter. Moreover, there is a disagreement among the reviewed guidelines on the antenatal management of maternal and fetal infection, whereas ECCI offers the most comprehensive recommendations in neonatal management compared with the other guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: CMV infection in pregnancy is considered a major contributor to severe neurodevelopmental disability and hearing impairment in infants. Hence, consistent global guidelines should be issued to be integrated into everyday practice to achieve the optimal perinatal outcome. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians. CME LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After participating in this activity, the learner should be better able to discuss hygiene strategies for the prevention of maternal infection from CMV; describe diagnostic methods for maternal CMV infection; and explain the optimal management of pregnant women with CMV infection.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207