Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38016805›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction update2024

COVID-19 in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk and prevalence of pregnancy loss.

Janneke A C van Baar, Elena B Kostova, John Allotey, Shakila Thangaratinam, Javier R Zamora, Mercedes Bonet, Caron Rahn Kim, Lynne M Mofenson, Heinke Kunst, Asma Khalil and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction update, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women about COVID-19 vaccination.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

Janneke A C van BaarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elena B KostovaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
John AlloteyBirmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Shakila ThangaratinamBirmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Javier R ZamoraWHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Mercedes BonetUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Caron Rahn KimUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lynne M MofensonElizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Washington, DC, USA.
Heinke KunstBlizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Asma KhalilSt George's University London, London, UK.
Elisabeth van LeeuwenAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Julia KeijzerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marije StrikwerdaDepartment Vrouw & Baby, Utrecht UMC, location University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bethany ClarkDepartment Vrouw & Baby, Utrecht UMC, location University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maxime VerschuurenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arri CoomarasamyBirmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Mariëtte GoddijnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Madelon van WelyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8263-213X
PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLWorld Health Organization · CHBirmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GBUtrecht University · NLElizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation · USInstituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria · ESMiscarriage Association · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPregnant women infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to experience preterm birth and their neonates are more likely to be stillborn or admitted to a neonatal unit. The World Health Organization declared in May 2023 an end to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a global health emergency. However, pregnant women are still becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and there is limited information available regarding the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We conducted this systematic review to determine the prevalence of early pregnancy loss in women with SARS-Cov-2 infection and compare the risk to pregnant women without SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH

methodsOur systematic review is based on a prospectively registered protocol. The search of PregCov19 consortium was supplemented with an extra electronic search specifically on pregnancy loss in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 10 March 2023 in PubMed, Google Scholar, and LitCovid. We included retrospective and prospective studies of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, provided that they contained information on pregnancy losses in the first and/or second trimester. Primary outcome was miscarriage defined as a pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation, however, studies that reported loss up to 22 or 24 weeks were also included. Additionally, we report on studies that defined the pregnancy loss to occur at the first and/or second trimester of pregnancy without specifying gestational age, and for second trimester miscarriage only when the study presented stillbirths and/or foetal losses separately from miscarriages. Data were stratified into first and second trimester. Secondary outcomes were ectopic pregnancy (any extra-uterine pregnancy), and termination of pregnancy. At least three researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% CI and pooled the data using random effects meta-analysis. To estimate risk prevalence, we performed meta-analysis on proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2. OUTCOMES: We included 120 studies comprising a total of 168 444 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection; of which 18 233 women were in their first or second trimester of pregnancy. Evidence level was considered to be of low to moderate certainty, mostly owing to selection bias. We did not find evidence of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and miscarriage (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.48; I2 = 0.0%; RD 0.0012, 95% CI -0.0103 to 0.0127; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4439 women). Miscarriage occurred in 9.9% (95% CI 6.2-14.0%; I2 = 68%; 46 studies, 1797 women) of the women with SARS CoV-2 infection in their first trimester and in 1.2% (95% CI 0.3-2.4%; I2 = 34%; 33 studies; 3159 women) in the second trimester. The proportion of ectopic pregnancies in women with SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.4% (95% CI 0.02-4.2%; I2 = 66%; 14 studies, 950 women). Termination of pregnancy occurred in 0.6% of the women (95% CI 0.01-1.6%; I2 = 79%; 39 studies; 1166 women). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Our study found no indication that SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first or second trimester increases the risk of miscarriages. To provide better risk estimates, well-designed studies are needed that include pregnant women with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection at conception and early pregnancy and consider the association of clinical manifestation and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection with pregnancy loss, as well as potential confounding factors such as previous pregnancy loss. For clinical practice, pregnant women should still be advised to take precautions to avoid risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousCOVID-19Premature BirthFemaleHumansPregnancyPrevalenceabortioncoronavirus disease 2019COVID-19(early) pregnancy lossectopic pregnancymiscarriageSARS-CoV-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2spontaneous abortiontermination of pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38016805
PMCPMC10905512
OpenAlexW4389152557

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.