ArticleInfection2026
Real-world implementation and clinical outcomes of a regional prenatal screening programme for Trypanosoma cruzi infection in a non-endemic European setting: an 11-year retrospective cohort study.
Article in Infection, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn non-endemic countries, congenital transmission has become the main source of new Trypanosoma cruzi infections. Prenatal screening programmes targeting women from endemic areas are recommended, yet long-term real-world evaluations in Europe remain limited. We assessed the implementation of a regional prenatal screening programme and the association between maternal T. cruzi infection and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsWe conducted an 11-year retrospective cohort study (2014-2024) at a tertiary hospital in Valencia, Spain. All pregnancies in women born in endemic countries were eligible. Two analyses were performed: (1) implementation of prenatal screening and factors associated with non-screening; and (2) maternal and neonatal outcomes according to maternal serological status. Multivariable logistic regression models with clustered robust standard errors were used to identify independent associations.
resultsAmong 3,004 eligible pregnancies, 2,460 (81.9%) underwent prenatal screening and 70 (2.8%) were seropositive; most seropositive women were born in Bolivia (95%). Screening uptake increased over time (adjusted OR per calendar year 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14). Increasing maternal age was associated with lower screening probability (aOR 0.97 per year, 95% CI 0.96-0.99), which also varied according to country of origin. Of the 70 seropositive pregnancies identified through prenatal screening, 62 had available delivery data and were included in the maternal and neonatal outcomes analysis, together with 2,080 seronegative pregnancies. An independent association was observed between maternal seropositivity and gestational complications (aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.03-3.24), maternal age (aOR 1.11 per year, 95% CI 1.05-1.16), autoimmune disease (aOR 9.71, 95% CI 2.33-33.07), hepatitis B infection (aOR 11.31, 95% CI 3.02-37.63), previous ectopic pregnancy (aOR 5.73, 95% CI 1.09-21.73), and higher neonatal birthweight percentile (aOR 1.02 per unit, 95% CI 1.01-1.03). One case of congenital infection was identified (1.8%)
conclusionsPrenatal screening for T. cruzi infection achieved high and progressively increasing coverage in a non-endemic European setting. Maternal seropositivity was associated with gestational complications and specific maternal health factors, suggesting that the clinical impact of chronic infection during pregnancy may extend beyond congenital transmission.
Identifiers
42728521What 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.