ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Impact of antenatal screening for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea on pregnancy outcomes in South African women.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated the impact of diagnosing and treating curable STIs during pregnancy on adverse pregnancy outcomes in Cape Town, South Africa.
methodsEligible women ≥ 15 years, without HIV, attending first antenatal care (ANC) visit before 28 weeks gestation, received diagnostic testing at enrolment and either same-day or follow-up treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) using either on-site GeneXpert or laboratory-based testing with TaqMan qPCR assays. We assessed prevalence of CT/NG, time to treatment and the frequency of poor pregnancy outcomes, individually and combined including pregnancy loss (miscarriage [< 20weeks] or stillbirth [≥ 20weeks]) and perinatal outcomes (low birthweight [< 2500 g], preterm birth [< 37weeks], small for gestational age [< 10th percentile] and neonatal death [< 7days]) among women with or without CT/NG at study enrolment. Logistic regression models evaluated the impact of time to CT/NG treatment on the frequency of individual and combined poor pregnancy outcomes, adjusting for maternal characteristics.
resultsAmong 1237 pregnant women, the prevalence of CT/NG at first ANC visit was 28% (24% CT, 8% NG). Of those diagnosed with CT/NG (n = 345), 54% received immediate treatment(< 7 days), while 34% experienced delayed treatment (median time to treatment 28 days (interquartile range: 15-57)) and 12% were untreated during pregnancy. Among women with CT/NG, the frequency of miscarriage (12%) and stillbirth (9%) were highest among women with untreated CT/NG, lower among delayed treatment (4% and 3%), and lowest among immediate treatment (1% and 2%), respectively. Among women with CT/NG at enrolment, poor pregnancy outcome was 28%, 23%, and 29% for immediate, delayed, and no treatment, respectively; 22% among women with no CT/NG at enrolment (overall χ² test, p = 0.05). Untreated CT/NG were associated with increased odds of pregnancy loss (adjusted odds ratio (aOR); 3.27, 95% CI: 1.09-9.80) compared to CT/NG with immediate treatment and compared to no CT/NG at study enrolment (aOR; 5.05, 95% CI: 2.23-11.43). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in poor pregnancy outcome by time to CT/NG treatment.
conclusionUntreated CT/NG during pregnancy increased the odds of experiencing a miscarriage or stillbirth. These findings suggest potential benefits of STI screening using diagnostic tests leading to the timely treatment of curable STIs in pregnancy, and randomized trials are urgently needed to clarify these effects. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.