Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39022799›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

PeRinatal, neOnatal, and Maternal OuTcomEs with azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnancy and labour (PROMOTE-PROPHYLAXIS): systematic review and meta-analysis.

Muhammad Aaqib Shamim, Jogender Kumar, Amol N Patil, Krishna Tiwari, Sakshi Sharma, Abhishek Anil, Aswini Saravanan, Mokanpally Sandeep, Shoban Babu Varthya, Surjit Singh and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. 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

23 authors.

Muhammad Aaqib ShamimDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Jogender KumarNeonatal Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Amol N PatilDepartment of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Krishna TiwariDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Sakshi SharmaDepartment of Pediatrics, Government District Hospital, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan, India.
Abhishek AnilDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Aswini SaravananDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Mokanpally SandeepSchool of Medical Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Shoban Babu VarthyaDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Surjit SinghDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Molla Imaduddin AhmedPediatric Respiratory Medicine, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Infirmary Square, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE1 5WW, United Kingdom.
Ahmad NajmiDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Muhammad Aasim ShamimDepartment of Hospital Administration, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Aravind GandhiDepartment of Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, India.
Prakisini SatapathyCenter for Global Health Research, Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, India.
Ranjit SahDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Sarvesh RustagiSchool of Applied and Life Sciences, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
Abhay M GaidhaneGlobal Health Academy, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education, Wardha, India.
Quazi Syed ZahiruddinDivision of Evidence Synthesis, Global Consortium of Public Health and Research, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education, Wardha, India.
Mahalaqua Nazli KhatibDivision of Evidence Synthesis, Global Consortium of Public Health and Research, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education, Wardha, India.
Bijaya Kumar PadhiDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Kuldeep SinghCentre of Excellence for Tribal Health, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Pradeep DwivediDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Initial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed that prophylactic azithromycin in pregnant women improved maternal and neonatal outcomes; however, the recent evidence did not show any benefit to neonatal survival. There is conflicting evidence over the role of azithromycin prophylaxis in antenatal and intrapartum periods. We explored whether azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnant women improves maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis registered on PROSPERO [CRD42023411093], we searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, EBSCOHost, ProQuest, and Web of Science) and clinical trial registries until 04/23/2024, for RCTs evaluating antenatal/intrapartum azithromycin prophylaxis against placebo/routine care in pregnant women. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Intrapartum and antenatal administration were assessed separately. We used random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Findings: Screening 2161 records retrieved 20 RCTs (56,381 participants). Intrapartum azithromycin may make little or no difference to neonatal mortality [5 RCTs, 44,436 participants; Risk Ratio (RR): 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.20, Interpretation: Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that intrapartum or antenatal azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnant women might not reduce maternal or neonatal mortality. Funding: None.

Indexed as

Low birthweightMaternal healthNeonatal mortalityNeonatal sepsisSurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID39022799
PMCPMC11253273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.