Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38068270›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

A Meta-Analysis of the Global Stillbirth Rates during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Manoj Mohan, Kwabena Appiah-Sakyi, Ashok Oliparambil, Abdul Kareem Pullattayil, Stephen W Lindow, Badreldeen Ahmed, Justin C Konje

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Epidemiology and placental pathology of intrauterine fetal demise in a tertiary hospital in the Philippines.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Antepartum stillbirth rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria: A population-based study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Manoj MohanDepartment Obstetrics and Gynecology, AsterDM Healthcare, Doha P.O. Box 8703, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0001-8818-7268
Kwabena Appiah-SakyiObstetrics and Gynecology, Britannia Medical Centre, Community 22, Tema, Ghana.
Ashok OliparambilPhysician Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
Abdul Kareem PullattayilSidra Medicine, Doha P.O. Box 26999, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-5228
Stephen W LindowMasters Projects, Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital, D08 XW7X Dublin, Ireland.
Badreldeen AhmedFeto Maternal Centre, Doha P.O. Box 34181, Qatar.
Justin C KonjeFeto Maternal Centre, Doha P.O. Box 34181, Qatar.
Qatar Airways (Qatar) · QACoombe Women & Infants University Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 has been shown to have variable adverse effects on pregnancy. Reported data on stillbirth rates during the pandemic have, however, been inconsistent-some reporting a rise and others no change. Knowing the precise impact of COVID-19 on stillbirths should help with the planning and delivery of antenatal care. Our aim was, therefore, to undertake a meta-analysis to determine the impact of COVID-19 on the stillbirth rate. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science, with no language restriction. Publications with stillbirth data on women with COVID-19, comparing stillbirth rates in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 women, as well as comparisons before and during the pandemic, were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data separately and then compared them to ensure the accuracy of extraction and synthesis. Where data were incomplete, authors were contacted for additional information, which was included if provided. The main outcome measures were (1) stillbirth (SB) rate in pregnant women with COVID-19, (2) stillbirth rates in pregnant women with and without COVID-19 during the same period, and (3) population stillbirth rates in pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. A total of 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis; from 17 of these, the SB rate was 7 per 1000 in women with COVID-19. This rate was much higher (34/1000) in low- and middle-income countries. The odds ratio of stillbirth in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 pregnant women was 1.89. However, there was no significant difference in population SB between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Stillbirths are an ongoing global concern, and there is evidence that the rate has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but mostly in low- and middle-income countries. A major factor for this is possibly access to healthcare during the pandemic. Attention should be focused on education and the provision of high-quality maternity care, such as face-to-face consultation (taking all the preventative precautions) or remote appointments where appropriate.

Indexed as

COVID-19meta-analysispre- and post-pandemicSARSstillbirth

Identifiers

PMID38068270
PMCPMC10707675
OpenAlexW4388857129

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.