ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2025
Routine antenatal toxoplasmosis screening, is it necessary?
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Toxoplasmosis is an intracellular parasite and one of the most common congenital infections. Currently, there is no clear consensus on routine screening for toxoplasma infection during pregnancy. This study aimed to discuss the results of antenatal toxoplasma screening in a tertiary center. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study including the data of the antenatal toxoplasmosis screening test results over four years. Toxoplasma immunoglobulin M (IgM), toxoplasma immunoglobulin G (IgG), anti-IgG avidity test results, amniocentesis, and toxoplasma polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were obtained from the hospital records. Patients with missing toxoplasma IgM, IgG, anti-IgG avidity, test results were excluded from the study. In addition, the fetal outcomes and follow-up information for the newborns of pregnant women who gave birth in our hospital were recorded. Results: During the study period, a total of 49,292 toxoplasma IgM tests were examined. Fifty pregnant women whose toxoplasma IgM was positive with a low-anti-toxoplasma IgG avidity index were enrolled in the study group. Forty percent of the pregnant women are expected to have amniocentesis. There was only one termination of pregnancy with specific ultrasonographic findings. Toxoplasma PCR was found to be negative in the other pregnant women. Of the pregnant women who were followed up, 23 gave birth in our hospital and the Sabin Feldman test was positive in 65.2 percent (15/23) of the newborns. Conclusion: Antenatal toxoplasmosis screening should be preserved for pregnant women with fetal ultrasonographic findings which may be related to toxoplasmosis. Further studies are needed.
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.