Association between maternal rectovaginal group B streptococcus and the risk of stillbirth: a meta-analysis.

IF 2.3 3区 生物学 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PeerJ Pub Date : 2025-01-13 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.7717/peerj.18834
Yujue Wang, Jingjing Liu, Jinlian Song, Teng Zhang
{"title":"Association between maternal rectovaginal group B streptococcus and the risk of stillbirth: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Yujue Wang, Jingjing Liu, Jinlian Song, Teng Zhang","doi":"10.7717/peerj.18834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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], <i>p</i> = 0.08; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 84%). However, sensitivity analyses revealed a significant association in studies that included intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) (OR: 1.36, 95% CI [1.02-1.80], <i>p</i> = 0.03). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant association between maternal rectovaginal GBS colonization and stillbirth risk in retrospective studies (OR: 2.62, <i>p</i> = 0.04) and in studies employing multivariate analysis (OR: 2.11, <i>p</i> = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19799,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ","volume":"13 ","pages":"e18834"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11737329/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18834","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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], p = 0.08; I2 = 84%). However, sensitivity analyses revealed a significant association in studies that included intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) (OR: 1.36, 95% CI [1.02-1.80], p = 0.03). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant association between maternal rectovaginal GBS colonization and stillbirth risk in retrospective studies (OR: 2.62, p = 0.04) and in studies employing multivariate analysis (OR: 2.11, p = 0.04).

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.

母体直肠阴道B群链球菌与死产风险的关系:一项荟萃分析。
背景:孕妇B群链球菌(GBS)定植与包括死产在内的不良围产期结局相关。本荟萃分析调查了母体直肠阴道GBS定植与死产风险之间的关系。方法:我们对PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、万方、中国国家知识基础设施等多个数据库进行了全面的文献检索,涵盖了从数据库建立到2024年9月9日发表的研究。研究的重点是观察性研究,比较有和没有直肠阴道GBS定植的孕妇死产的风险。使用比值比(ORs)和95%置信区间(ci)对结果进行总结,并使用随机效应模型来解释潜在的异质性。结果:共有10项研究包括121195名孕妇被纳入分析。综合结果显示,母体直肠阴道GBS定植与死产风险之间没有显著的总体关联(OR: 1.66, 95% CI [0.95-2.91], p = 0.08;I2 = 84%)。然而,敏感性分析显示,包括产时抗生素预防(IAP)在内的研究存在显著相关性(OR: 1.36, 95% CI [1.02-1.80], p = 0.03)。亚组分析显示,在回顾性研究(OR: 2.62, p = 0.04)和多变量分析研究(OR: 2.11, p = 0.04)中,母体直肠阴道GBS定植与死产风险之间存在显著关联。结论:虽然荟萃分析并未发现母体直肠阴道GBS定植与死产之间存在显著的整体关联,但在特定条件下发现了显著的关联,例如使用IAP、回顾性设计和多变量分析的研究。需要进一步的研究来澄清这些关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PeerJ
PeerJ MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
1665
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. At PeerJ, authors take out a lifetime publication plan (for as little as $99) which allows them to publish articles in the journal for free, forever. PeerJ has 5 Nobel Prize Winners on the Board; they have won several industry and media awards; and they are widely recognized as being one of the most interesting recent developments in academic publishing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信