Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30275948›Full record

ReviewJournal of nutritional science2018

Nutrition and listeriosis during pregnancy: a systematic review.

L J Moran, Y Verwiel, M Bahri Khomami, T J Roseboom, R C Painter

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of nutritional science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Case Series ofMicroorganisms · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Perinatal Infection withJournal of inflammation research · 2023
    Article
  9. Using FIGO Nutrition Checklist counselling in pregnancy: A review to support healthcare professionals.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023
    Review
  10. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

L J MoranMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University in partnership with Monash Health, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia.
Y VerwielDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M Bahri KhomamiMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University in partnership with Monash Health, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia.
T J RoseboomDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R C PainterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLMonash Health · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Listeriosis is a rare but severe foodborne illness which is more common in populations such as pregnant women, and can result in serious complications including miscarriage, prematurity, maternal and neonatal sepsis, and death in the newborn. Population recommendations exist for specific foods and food preparation practices to reduce listeriosis risk during pregnancy. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the association between listeriosis and these practices during pregnancy to confirm appropriateness of these recommendations. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science Core Collection, included articles' references, and contacted clinical experts. All databases were searched until July 2017. Case-control and cohort studies were included which assessed pregnant women or their newborn offspring with known listeriosis status and a nutritional exposure consistent with international population recommendations for minimising listeriosis. Outcomes included listeriosis with or without pregnancy outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were described narratively due to clinical heterogeneity in differences in nutritional exposures. Eleven articles comprising case-control or cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Cases of maternal, fetal or neonate listeriosis were more likely to have consumed high-risk dairy products, meat products or some fruits during pregnancy in comparison with women without listeriosis. Cases of listeriosis were more likely to have consumed foods that are highlighted in population guidelines to avoid to minimise listeriosis in comparison with those without listeriosis during pregnancy. Further research is warranted assessing means of improving the reach, uptake and generalisability of population guidelines for reducing listeriosis during pregnancy.

Indexed as

FoodListeria monocytogenesListeriosisPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID30275948
PMCPMC6161013
OpenAlexW2893562037

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.