Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32487247›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2020

Another piece of the Zika puzzle: assessing the associated factors to microcephaly in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Luciana Guerra Gallo, Jorge Martinez-Cajas, Henry Maia Peixoto, Ana Carolina Esteves da Silva Pereira, Jillian E Carter, Sandra McKeown, Bruno Schaub, Camila V Ventura, Giovanny Vinícius Araújo de França, Léo Pomar and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Luciana Guerra GalloPostgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
Jorge Martinez-CajasDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Henry Maia PeixotoPostgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
Ana Carolina Esteves da Silva PereiraProgram of Evidence for Policies and Health Technologies, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Brasilia, Brazil.
Jillian E CarterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Sandra McKeownBracken Health Sciences Library, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Bruno SchaubCentre Pluridisciplinaire de Diagnostic Prénatal de le Martinique, Maison de la Femme, de la Mère et de l'Enfant, University Hospital of Martinique, Fort-de-France, Martinique.
Camila V VenturaDepartment of Scientific Investigation, Altino Ventura Foundation, Recife, Brazil.
Giovanny Vinícius Araújo de FrançaBrazilian Ministry of Health, Brasilia, Brazil.
Léo PomarMaterno-fetal and Obstetrics Research Unit, Département "Femme-Mère Enfant", University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Liana O VenturaDepartment of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, Altino Ventura Foundation, Recife, Brazil.
Vivek R NerurkarDepartment of Tropical Medicine, Medical Microbiology and Pharmacology, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, USA.
Wildo Navegantes de AraújoPostgraduate Program in Tropical Medicine, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
Maria P VelezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. maria.velez@queensu.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4834-8279
Queen's University · CAUniversidade de Brasília · BRFundação Altino Ventura · BRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Martinique · MQFundação Oswaldo Cruz · BRHôpital Femme Mère Enfant · FRMinistério da Saúde · BRUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · US

Funding

Ministério da Educação CAPES/PDSE 88881.133664/2016-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough it is known that Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy may lead to microcephaly in the fetus, the prognostic factors associated with this tragic disorder remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prognostic factors associated with the incidence of microcephaly in congenital ZIKV infection.

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (R) Epub ahead of print, Embase, Embase Classic, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, and various thesis databases to identify human studies reporting microcephaly associated with congenital ZIKV infection. We requested primary data from the authors of the included studies to calculate summary estimates and conduct the meta-analysis of the most prevalent factors.

resultsWe screened 4106 titles and abstracts, and identified 12 studies for inclusion in the systematic review. The assessment of ZIKV infection and the definition of microcephaly varied among studies. A total of 6154 newborns/fetuses were enrolled; of those, 1120 (18.20%) had a diagnostic of ZIKV infection, of which 509 (45.45%) were diagnosed with microcephaly. Nine studies addressed the link between congenital ZIKV infection and neurological findings in newborns/fetuses. Half of the studies provided primary data. Three out of 11 factors of interest seem to be prognostic factors of microcephaly: infant's sex - males compared to females: Relative Risk (RR) 1.30, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.49; the stage of pregnancy when infection occurred - infection in the first trimester of pregnancy compared to infection at other stages of pregnancy: RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.82; and asymptomatic infection compared to symptomatic infection during pregnancy: RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77.

conclusionOur findings support the female-biased resistance hypothesis and reinforce the risk associated with the stage of pregnancy when ZIKV infection occurs. Continued surveillance of ZIKV infection during pregnancy is needed to identify additional factors that could contribute to developing microcephaly in affected fetuses. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration no. CRD 42018088075.

Indexed as

AdultAge of OnsetFemaleFetusHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMicrocephalyPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPregnancy TrimestersPrevalenceSex FactorsZika VirusZika Virus InfectionCongenital diseaseCongenital Zika syndromeMicrocephalyPregnancyRisk factorsSystematic reviewZika virus

Identifiers

PMID32487247
PMCPMC7266116
OpenAlexW3028654171

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.