SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Fetal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies complicated by maternal sleep-disordered breathing: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Maternal obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and the broader spectrum of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) during pregnancy may be associated with fetal and neonatal outcomes, but the literature is heterogeneous and uses clinically distinct exposure definitions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate associations between maternal SDB and fetal/neonatal outcomes while preserving differences in exposure ascertainment. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020, the review was re-audited using updated PubMed and Web of Science searches, backward and forward citation searching, and ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP registry searches. Exposures were classified as (1) objectively confirmed OSA/SDB, (2) administrative-code-defined OSA, and (3) symptom-, snoring-, or questionnaire-defined SDB risk. No meta-analysis was conducted because clinically comparable subsets were insufficient for quantitative pooling. Results: The completed re-audit identified 64 eligible publications mapped to 53 conservative cohort/dataset families (55 if two probable overlap pairs are treated as separate): 22 objective/physiologic, 11 administrative/clinical, and 31 symptom/questionnaire publications. Objective studies showed mixed findings, with fetal-growth or neonatal signals in selected cohorts but null findings in several other objectively assessed populations. Administrative-code OSA was repeatedly associated with preterm birth and selected neonatal outcomes, although exposure misclassification and residual confounding remain important. Symptom/questionnaire studies were heterogeneous, with associations varying by symptom definition, timing, and outcome. Conclusion: Current evidence does not establish a consistent fetal or neonatal risk pattern for objectively confirmed maternal OSA/SDB. Administrative-code and symptom/questionnaire evidence suggests associations for selected outcomes, particularly preterm birth, but should not be interpreted as a single homogeneous OSA effect. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251110706.
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.