Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33253283›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Seroprevalence analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in pregnant women along the first pandemic outbreak and perinatal outcome.

Cecilia Villalaín, Ignacio Herraiz, Joanna Luczkowiak, Alfredo Pérez-Rivilla, María Dolores Folgueira, Inmaculada Mejía, Emma Batllori, Eva Felipe, Beatriz Risco, Alberto Galindo and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

11 authors.

Cecilia VillalaínFetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9456-4100
Ignacio HerraizFetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Joanna LuczkowiakInstituto de Investigación Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6950-9372
Alfredo Pérez-RivillaDepartment of Clinical Microbiology Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
María Dolores FolgueiraInstituto de Investigación Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), Madrid, Spain.
Inmaculada MejíaFetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Emma BatlloriFetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Eva FelipeFetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Beatriz RiscoFetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Alberto GalindoFetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Rafael DelgadoInstituto de Investigación Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6912-4736

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the progression of the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the pregnant population of the south of Madrid during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondarily we aimed to evaluate maternal and perinatal outcomes. STUDY

designRetrospective cohort study conducted at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre during weeks 10 to 19 of 2020, coinciding with the Spanish lockdown. We tested 769 serum samples obtained from routine serological testing during the first and third trimesters of pregnancy for specific IgG anti SARS-CoV-2 RBD and S proteins. RT-PCR tests were performed in suspected cases according to clinical practice. We compared maternal and perinatal outcomes in those with delivered pregnancies (n = 578) according to the presence or absence of specific IgG antibodies. Those with positive IgG were subdivided by the presence or absence of Covid-19 related symptoms at any time and the results of RT-PCR testing if performed. Therefore, we had 4 study groups: G1 (IgG negative), G2 (IgG positive, asymptomatic, RT-PCR testing negative or not done), G3 (IgG positive, symptomatic, RT-PCR testing negative or not done), and G4 (IgG positive, symptomatic, RT-PCR positive).

resultsSeropositivity increased from 0% to 21.4% (95% CI 11.8-31.0) during the study period, of which 27.9% had an asymptomatic course. Overall outcomes were favorable with a significant increased rate of preterm birth in G4 vs G1 (21.4% vs 6.7%) and cesarean/operative delivery (50% vs 26.9%). Asymptomatic and mild cases did not have differences regarding pregnancy course when compared to seronegative women. There were no documented cases of vertical or horizontal transmission.

conclusionSeroprevalence in pregnant women in southern Madrid went up to 21.4% of which 27.9% had an asymptomatic course. Overall perinatal results were favorable, especially in those asymptomatic.

Indexed as

PandemicsAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Seroepidemiologic Studies

Identifiers

PMID33253283
PMCPMC7703887

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.