Screening of Group B Streptococcus in pregnancy: A systematic review for the laboratory detection.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Open Medicine Pub Date : 2025-08-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1515/med-2025-1197
Valentina Arsić Arsenijević, Vladimir Gerginić, Biljana Miličić, Aleksandar Jurišić, Ljubomir Petričević
{"title":"Screening of Group B <i>Streptococcus</i> in pregnancy: A systematic review for the laboratory detection.","authors":"Valentina Arsić Arsenijević, Vladimir Gerginić, Biljana Miličić, Aleksandar Jurišić, Ljubomir Petričević","doi":"10.1515/med-2025-1197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Group B <i>Streptococcus</i> (GBS) is important since almost 1/3 of pregnant women are colonized with GBS, and as much as 50% passes to the newborns, sometimes resulting in severe neonatal infections; that is why there are mandatory guidelines for antepartum screening for GBS vaginal/rectal colonization. Also, bacteria other than GBS and yeasts may affect newborns; therefore, an increase in the current knowledge and improving the guidelines related to the prediction and prevention of neonatal early-onset infections are needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed to investigate risks, types of specimens, sampling methods, media for GBS recovery, identification tests, gestation week for testing, GBS prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, turnover time for cultures, antigen, and molecular-based tests. A literature search was conducted through the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 20 studies were identified with 10,288 patients and 1,334 GBS positive (13%). Eight studies were performed in adequate gestation week and revealed prevalence from 0.2 to 20.8% (conventional tests) and 37 to 45% (molecular tests). In only three studies, vaginal/rectal swab recommended by guidelines was applied.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The heterogeneity of the detection and identification of GBS reduces the scientific and clinical utility of laboratory-based data, and universal antepartum screening with affordable, high-sensitivity traditional tests is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":19715,"journal":{"name":"Open Medicine","volume":"20 1","pages":"20251197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12355363/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2025-1197","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is important since almost 1/3 of pregnant women are colonized with GBS, and as much as 50% passes to the newborns, sometimes resulting in severe neonatal infections; that is why there are mandatory guidelines for antepartum screening for GBS vaginal/rectal colonization. Also, bacteria other than GBS and yeasts may affect newborns; therefore, an increase in the current knowledge and improving the guidelines related to the prediction and prevention of neonatal early-onset infections are needed.

Methods: A systematic review was performed to investigate risks, types of specimens, sampling methods, media for GBS recovery, identification tests, gestation week for testing, GBS prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, turnover time for cultures, antigen, and molecular-based tests. A literature search was conducted through the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed.

Results: A total of 20 studies were identified with 10,288 patients and 1,334 GBS positive (13%). Eight studies were performed in adequate gestation week and revealed prevalence from 0.2 to 20.8% (conventional tests) and 37 to 45% (molecular tests). In only three studies, vaginal/rectal swab recommended by guidelines was applied.

Conclusions: The heterogeneity of the detection and identification of GBS reduces the scientific and clinical utility of laboratory-based data, and universal antepartum screening with affordable, high-sensitivity traditional tests is needed.

Abstract Image

妊娠期B群链球菌的筛查:实验室检测的系统综述。
背景:B群链球菌(GBS)很重要,因为几乎1/3的孕妇定植有GBS,高达50%的孕妇会传给新生儿,有时会导致严重的新生儿感染;这就是为什么有强制性指导产前筛查GBS阴道/直肠定植。此外,GBS和酵母以外的细菌也可能影响新生儿;因此,需要增加现有的知识和改进有关预测和预防新生儿早发性感染的指南。方法:对风险、标本类型、取样方法、GBS恢复介质、鉴定试验、检测妊娠周、GBS患病率、敏感性、特异性、培养物周转时间、抗原和基于分子的试验进行系统评价。通过Web of Science、Scopus和PubMed进行文献检索。结果:共纳入20项研究,10288例患者,其中1334例GBS阳性(13%)。在适当的妊娠周内进行了8项研究,发现患病率为0.2%至20.8%(常规检测)和37%至45%(分子检测)。只有三项研究采用了指南推荐的阴道/直肠拭子。结论:GBS检测和鉴定的异质性降低了实验室数据的科学性和临床实用性,需要采用价格合理、灵敏度高的传统检测方法进行产前筛查。
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
Open Medicine
Open Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
153
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Medicine is an open access journal that provides users with free, instant, and continued access to all content worldwide. The primary goal of the journal has always been a focus on maintaining the high quality of its published content. Its mission is to facilitate the exchange of ideas between medical science researchers from different countries. Papers connected to all fields of medicine and public health are welcomed. Open Medicine accepts submissions of research articles, reviews, case reports, letters to editor and book reviews.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信