SynthesisPloS one2024
Prevalence of systemic antibacterial use during pregnancy worldwide: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of systemic antibacterial use during pregnancy worldwide: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Medication use during pregnancy in Japan from 2005 to 2019: Trends and safety considerations.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Adherence to Clinical Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Pregnant Patients: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Observational Study in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
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
objectivesIn this study, we aimed to systematically review the literature of the prevalence of systemic antibacterial use during pregnancy and to perform a descriptive analysis focused on methodological characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was registered in PROSPERO under protocol number CRD42022376634. Medline, Embase, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science databases were searched (published studies until November 3rd, 2022). Selected studies were population-based cross-sectional or cohort, carried out with pregnant women, and providing information about the prevalence of systemic antibacterial use at least in one trimester of pregnancy. Reviewers conducted in pairs the title and abstract screening, eligibility criteria check, and data extraction of selected studies. Quality appraisal was performed with an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Data of included studies were pooled into a graphical and tabular summary.
resultsA total of 16,251,280 pregnant women and 5,169,959 pregnancy registers were identified. The prevalence estimates of systemic antibacterial use during pregnancy ranged from 2.0% (95%CI 2.0-2.0) to 64.3% (95%CI not reported) in the 79 included studies. The majority were performed in high-income countries (91.5%). Overall, the studies revealed considerable prevalence heterogeneity in terms of study type and dataset used. The 95% confidence intervals were not reported in 41% of studies.
conclusionThe disparities in the prevalence of systemic antibacterial use during pregnancy can be related to methodological issues and different health policies. Lack of uniform databases and changes in data collection methods over time should be taken into account in public health strategy planning. The scarce evidence in low- and middle-income settings hampers the comprehensiveness of the global prevalence of antibacterial use during pregnancy.
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.