ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2023
Cytokine responses to SARS-COV2 infection in mother-infant dyads: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The dialog between mother and newborn: insights from immune mediator crosstalk elicited by antenatal SARS-COV-2 exposure.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Impact of pregnant mothers' previous COVID-19 infection and vaccination on newborns' serological profiling.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Positive Autism Screening Rates in Toddlers Born During the COVID-19 Pandemic.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- SARS-CoV-2 infection, inflammation and birth outcomes in a prospective NYC pregnancy cohort.Journal of reproductive immunology · 2024Article
- Maternal immunity shapes biomarkers of germinal center development in HIV-exposed uninfected infants.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Maternal-fetal cytokine profiles in acute SARS-CoV-2 "breakthrough" infection after COVID-19 vaccination.Frontiers in immunology · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected a significant number of pregnant women worldwide, but studies on immune responses have presented conflicting results. This study aims to systematically review cytokine profiles in pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection and their infants to evaluate immune responses and potential transplacental transfer of cytokines. Materials and methods: A comprehensive search of 4 databases was conducted to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria included studies measuring individual cytokines in pregnant women and/or their neonates. Studies were evaluated for quality, and data were extracted for analysis. Meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, including data from 748 pregnant women and 287 infants. More than three of these studies evaluated data of 20 cytokines in maternal serum, and data of 10 cytokines was available from cord blood samples. Only the serum level of CXCL10 was significantly up-regulated in SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant women ( Conclusion: The findings suggest that maternal cytokines responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy are not significantly dysregulated, except for CXCL10 and IFN-γ during the acute phase of illness. No evidence of increased cytokine levels in cord blood samples was observed, although this could be impacted by the time period between initial maternal infection and cord blood collection. These results provide some reassurance to parents and healthcare providers but should be interpreted cautiously due to study variations and limitations.
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.