ReviewTropical medicine and infectious disease2022
Microcephaly and Associated Risk Factors in Newborns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study.
Review in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of Zika virus epidemiology.Nature health · 2026Article
- Epidemiological Surveillance of Genetically Determined Microcephaly in Latin America: A Narrative Review.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Seroprevalence and Placental Transfer of Zika and Dengue Virus Antibodies in Postpartum Women in Southeast Brazil.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
- Adverse fetal and perinatal outcomes associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy: an individual participant data meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Microcephaly in Infants: A Retrospective Cohort Study from TurkeyJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2024Article
- Sociodemographic and Clinical Factors for Microcephaly Secondary to Teratogenic Infections in Brazil: An Ecological Study.Viruses · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Congenital microcephaly is caused by a multitude of drivers affecting maternal−fetal health during pregnancy. It is a rare outcome in high-income industrial countries where microcephaly rates are in the range of 0.3−0.9 per 1000 newborns. Prevalence of microcephaly varies considerably across developing countries and can go as high as 58 cases per 1000 live births in pregnancies exposed to infection by Zika virus (ZIKV). Not only ZIKV-infected pregnancies, but other drivers can modulate the occurrence and severity of this outcome. Here, we sought to test the ZIKV−microcephaly association vs. competing hypotheses using a meta-analysis with 8341 microcephaly cases pooled from 10,250,994 newborns in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Analysis of risk ratios (RR) showed teratogens the most likely microcephaly-associated risk factor (RR = 3.43; 95%-CI 2.69−4.38; p-value < 0.0001), while the statistical significance of the ZIKV−microcephaly association was marginal (RR = 2.12; 95%-CI 1.01−4.48; p-value = 0.048). Other congenital infections showed strong but variable associations with microcephaly (RR = 15.24; 95%-CI 1.74−133.70; p-value = 0.014). Microcephaly cases were associated with impoverished socioeconomic settings, but this association was statistically non-significant (RR = 2.75; 95%-CI 0.55−13.78; p-value = 0.22). The marginal ZIKV−microcephaly association and statistical significance of the competing hypotheses suggest maternal ZIKV infection might not be a cause of microcephaly alone.
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.