ArticleBMJ open2023
Colonisation of Group B
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes and histological chorioamnionitis in preterm premature rupture of membranes complicated by group B streptococcus colonization: a retrospective analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Serotype Distribution, Antibiotic Resistance Characteristics, and Virulence Factor Analysis of Group BInfection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Serum inflammatory and coagulation markers in GBS infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes.Biomarkers in medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of induction of labor mode on pregnancy outcome in full-term GBS colonization pregnant women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes of Group B Streptococcus colonization: a retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Improving neonatal outcome by studying the incidence of maternal group B streptococcus colonization among pregnant women: A prospective observational study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- The proportion of GBS-positive mothers among the screened population and outcomes of maternal Group B streptococcus colonization at King Saud University Medical City: a retrospective cohort study.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study was to investigate the colonisation rate of Group B
designA retrospective cohort study.
settingData of 47 380 pregnant women from 2016 to 2022 were collected from the Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Huadu District, Guangzhou City, China.
participantsA total of 15 040 pregnant women were eligible for this study, of which 32 340 were excluded due to non-native pregnant women, in vitro fertilization infants, malformed fetuses, habitual abortion, abortions due to poor reproductive or obstetrical history, artificial insemination, umbilical cord torsion, and other diseases during pregnancy. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence rates of GBS colonisation and premature delivery, fetal distress, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), low birth weight (LBW), abortion and stillbirth.
resultsOf the 15 040 pregnant women included in this study, 1445 developed GBS colonisation, with a prevalence of 9.61% (95% CI, 9.15 to 10.09). Advanced maternal age (≥35 years) predisposed women to GBS colonisation, and the occurrence of GBS colonisation varied among different ethnic groups. Our data revealed that fetal distress, PROM and LBW were more common in pregnant women colonised with GBS than in pregnant women not colonised with GBS. The incidence for premature delivery, fetal distress, PROM and LBW in infants of pregnant women colonised with GBS was 41.0% (OR=1.410, 95% CI, 1.134 to 1.753), 282.5% (OR=3.825, 95% CI, 3.185 to 4.593), 14.9% (OR=1.149, 95% CI, 1.005 to 1.313), and 29.7% (OR=1.297, 95% CI, 1.010 to 1.664), respectively.
conclusionsGBS colonisation was relatively low in pregnant women in Guangzhou. Women of advanced maternal age were more prone to GBS colonisation, and pregnant women colonised with GBS were more predisposed to fetal distress, PROM and LBW.
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.