ArticlePeerJ2021
Group B Streptococcus and the vaginal microbiome among pregnant women: a systematic review.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Culture-Based Cervicovaginal Findings andMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Gut microbiota and short-chain fatty acids in pregnant women with group BFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Regional differences in autism and intellectual disability risk associated with cesarean section delivery.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2024Article
- Macrolide and lincosamide resistance of Streptococcus agalactiae in pregnant women in Poland.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Group BFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVaginal microbiome studies frequently report diversity metrics and communities of microbiomes associated with reproductive health outcomes. Reports of METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guideline. Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were used to identify papers for review based on the search terms "vaginal microbiome", "pregnancy", and "16S rRNA sequencing". Articles were evaluated for methods of DNA extraction and sequencing, 16S region, taxonomy classification database, number of participants or vaginal specimens, and pregnancy trimester.
resultsForty-five research articles reported employing a metagenomic approach or 16S approach for vaginal microbiome analysis during pregnancy that explicitly reported taxonomic composition and were included in this review. Less than 30% of articles reported the presence of GBS (
conclusionConsiderable differences in study design and data formatting methods may contribute to underrepresentation of GBS, and other known pathogens, in existing vaginal microbiome literature. Previous studies have identified considerable variation in methodology across vaginal microbiome studies. This study adds to this body of work because in addition to laboratory or statistical methods, how results and data are shared (e.g., only analyzing genus level data or 20 most abundant microbes), may hinder reproducibility and limit our understanding of the influence of less abundant microbes. Sharing detailed methods, analysis code, and raw data may improve reproducibility and ability to more accurately compare microbial communities across studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.