Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection Burden and Epidemiologic Risk Factors in Countries with Universal Screening : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection is the most common congenital infection and the leading acquired cause of developmental disabilities and sensorineural deafness, yet a reliable assessment of the infection burden is lacking. Objectives: To estimate the birth prevalence of cCMV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs), characterize the rate by screening methods, and delineate associated risk factors of the infection. Data Sources: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from January 1, 1960, to March 1, 2021, and a total of 1322 studies were identified. Study Selection: Studies that provided data on the prevalence of cCMV derived from universal screening of infants younger than 3 weeks were included. Targeted screening studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Extraction was performed independently by 3 reviewers. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Metaregression was conducted to evaluate the association of sociodemographic characteristics, maternal seroprevalence, population-level HIV prevalence, and screening methods with the prevalence of cCMV. Main Outcomes and Measures: Birth prevalence of cCMV ascertained through universal screening of infants younger than 3 weeks for CMV from urine, saliva, or blood samples. Results: Seventy-seven studies comprising 515646 infants met the inclusion criteria from countries representative of each World Bank income level. The estimated pooled overall prevalence of cCMV was 0.67% (95% CI, 0.54%-0.83%). The pooled birth prevalence of cCMV was 3-fold greater in LMICs (1.42%; 95% CI, 0.97%-2.08%; n = 23 studies) than in HICs (0.48%; 95% CI, 0.40%-0.59%, n = 54 studies). Screening methods with blood samples demonstrated lower rates of cCMV than urine or saliva samples (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.66). Higher maternal CMV seroprevalence (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.28), higher population-level HIV prevalence (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40), lower socioeconomic status (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 2.05-4.47), and younger mean maternal age (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92, older age was associated with lower rates) were associated with higher rates of cCMV. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, LMICs appeared to incur the most significant infection burden. Lower rates of cCMV were reported by studies using only blood or serum as a screening method.. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".