ReviewEClinicalMedicine2024
In need of robust evidence of non-association of pregestational and early pregnancy SARS-CoV-2 infections with congenital anomalies.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- First-Trimester mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Risk of Major Congenital Anomalies.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Is maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester associated with congenital heart defects?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- COVID-19 pandemic, pregnancy care, perinatal outcomes in Eastern Myanmar and North-Western Thailand: a retrospective marginalised population cohort.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregestational and early pregnancy periods has an unclear impact on fetal development. Although vertical transmission is rare, potential effects on the developing fetal brain are plausible. However, robust evidence linking maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection to congenital anomalies is limited due to inadequate tracking of infection history and methodological flaws in published studies. This is further complicated by limitations, such as restricted testing access and undiagnosed infections, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Most data focus on hospitalized women near term, lacking information on first- and second-trimester infections. Thus, an accurate assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on congenital anomalies is essential. It should however be emphasised that we have robust evidence that vaccination against COVID-19 before or during early pregnancy is not associated with malformations, ruling out any role of COVID-19 vaccines in these increased rates of congenital abnormalities. This viewpoint discusses findings from surveillance registries, highlights study limitations, and offers research recommendations to inform clinical guidelines and public health strategies, aiming to mitigate the effects of viral infections on early neurodevelopment.
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.