Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26635788›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2015

Advances in the Prevention of Infection-Related Preterm Birth.

Ronald F Lamont

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Second trimester vaginalFrontiers in global women's health · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Environmental Toxicants and Preterm Birth: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends and Output.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Ronald F LamontResearch Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Institute of Clinical Research, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark , Odense , Denmark ; Division of Surgery, University College London , London , UK.
University College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infection-related preterm birth (PTB) is more common at early gestational ages and is associated with major neonatal mortality and morbidity. Abnormal genital tract microflora in early pregnancy predicts late miscarriage and early PTB. Accordingly, it is logical to consider antibiotics as an intervention. Unfortunately, the conclusions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR&MAs) carried out in an attempt to explain the confusion over the heterogeneity of individual studies are flawed by the fact that undue reliance was placed on studies which: (a) had a suboptimal choice of antibiotic (mainly metronidazole) or used antibiotics not recommended for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis (BV) or BV-related organisms; (b) used antibiotics too late in pregnancy to influence outcome (23-27 weeks); and (c) included women whose risk of PTB was not due to abnormal genital tract colonization and hence unlikely to respond to antibiotics. These risks included: (a) previous PTB of indeterminate etiology; (b) low weight/body mass index; or (c) detection of fetal fibronectin, ureaplasmas, Group B streptococcus or Trichomonas vaginalis). While individual studies have found benefit of antibiotic intervention for the prevention of PTB, in meta-analyses these effects have been negated by large methodologically flawed studies with negative results. As a result, many clinicians think that any antibiotic given at any time in pregnancy to any woman at risk of PTB will cause more harm than good. Recently, a more focused SR&MA has demonstrated that antibiotics active against BV-related organisms, used in women whose risk of PTB is due to abnormal microflora, and used early in pregnancy before irreversible inflammatory damage has occurred, can reduce the rate of PTB. This review presents those data, the background and attempts to explain the confusion using new information from culture-independent molecular-based techniques. It also gives guidance on the structure of putative future antibiotic intervention studies.

Indexed as

antibioticsbacterial vaginosisinfectionpreterm birthpreterm labour/labor

Identifiers

PMID26635788
PMCPMC4644786
OpenAlexW2187607986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.