MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417317277 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.70694

Adverse outcomes among pregnant women with <scp>COVID</scp> ‐19 according to hospitalization status: A prospective individual participant data meta‐analysis in Europe and North America

2025· article· en· W4417317277 on OpenAlexafffund
Odette de Bruin, Émeline Maisonneuve, Eimir Hurley, Hedvig Nordeng, Anick Bérard, Odile Sheehy, Padma Kaul, Mayura Shinde, Austin Cosgrove, Jennifer G. Lyons, Elizabeth Messenger‐Jones, Maria E. Kempner, Sengwee Toh, Wei Hua, José J. Hernández‐Muñoz, Leyla Şahin, Carolyn E. Cesta, David Hägg, Rosa Gini, Olga Paoletti, Beatriz Poblador‐Plou, Sue Jordan, Clara L. Rodríguez‐Bernal, Francisco Sánchez‐Sáez, R. Lassalle, Marie‐Agnès Bernard, Fariba Ahmadizar, Guillaume Favre, Alice Panchaud, Kitty W.M. Bloemenkamp, Kelly Plueschke, Corinne S de Vries, Satu J. Siiskonen, Miriam Sturkenboom

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationEuropean Medicines AgencyCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsPregnancyAdverse effectData collectionMEDLINEProspective cohort studyGlobal health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Understanding the varied impact of COVID‐19 severity on pregnancy outcomes is crucial for informed clinical management and targeted interventions. Objective To evaluate the impact of COVID‐19 on pregnancy outcomes, distinguishing between pregnant women managed in primary care and those requiring hospitalization. Search Strategy Regulatory authorities actively promoted global cooperation on COVID‐19's impact during pregnancy. Data were obtained through these regulatory bodies and direct researcher communication rather than through systematic searches. Selection Criteria Data sources required secondary population‐based data to identify pregnancies with COVID‐19, along with hospitalization, diagnostic and medication codes. Eligibility for the meta‐analysis was determined through protocol evaluation and researcher consultations. Data Collection and Analysis PRISMA‐IPD and Cochrane guidelines for prospective meta‐analysis were followed. Protocols and definitions were standardized across sources, and a common R script was developed. Initially, crude and adjusted relative risks (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess adverse outcomes in pregnant women with and without COVID‐19 in each data source. Estimates were stratified by trimester at infection and hospitalization status. Subsequently, data were pooled using a random‐effects meta‐analysis. Main Results Data from 10 sources across seven countries contributed to the meta‐analysis, including 86 210 pregnant women diagnosed with COVID‐19, of whom 4.4% were hospitalized. Non‐hospitalized pregnant women with COVID‐19 had no increased risks of adverse outcomes compared to pregnant women without COVID‐19. However, hospitalized women with COVID‐19 in each trimester had higher risks of cesarean section, preterm birth, and LBW compared to pregnant women without COVID‐19. Hospitalization due to COVID‐19 in the third trimester was associated with increased risk of stillbirth (aRR 5.90, 95% CI: 2.22–15.71, I 2 = 0%). First‐trimester hospitalizations due to COVID‐19 did not show heightened risks of GDM (aRR 2.08, 95% CI: 0.93–4.64, I 2 = 65%), pre‐eclampsia (aRR 1.79, 95% CI: 0.48–6.66, I 2 = 71%), or major congenital anomalies (aRR 1.30, 95% CI: 0.55–3.06, I 2 = 0%). Conclusions and Relevance COVID‐19 requiring hospitalization is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, emphasizing the need to prevent severe illness during pregnancy. This study also highlights the importance of international collaboration for gathering pregnancy data and shows that building global research networks is essential for responding to future health crises.

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)0.040
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207