SynthesisPeerJ2025
Association between maternal rectovaginal group B streptococcus and the risk of stillbirth: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Group B Streptococcus Colonization Among Pregnant Women in Jordan: Prevalence, Outcomes and a Comparison Between Healthcare and Non- Healthcare Providers.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
Background: Group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization in pregnant women is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth. This meta-analysis investigated the relationship between maternal rectovaginal GBS colonization and the risk of stillbirth. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, covering studies published from the inception of the database until September 9, 2024. The search focused on observational studies comparing the risk of stillbirth in pregnant women with and without rectovaginal GBS colonization. Results were summarized using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a random-effects model was used to account for potential heterogeneity. Results: A total of ten studies comprising 121,195 pregnant women were included in the analysis. The pooled results indicated no significant overall association between maternal rectovaginal GBS colonization and the risk of stillbirth (OR: 1.66, 95% CI [0.95-2.91], Conclusions: While the meta-analysis did not find a significant overall association between maternal rectovaginal GBS colonization and stillbirth, significant associations were noted under specific conditions, such as studies using IAP, retrospective designs, and multivariate analyses. Further research is needed to clarify these associations.
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.