60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Association of COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy With Adverse Peripartum Outcomes

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement

          Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies

            The propensity score is defined as a subject's probability of treatment selection, conditional on observed baseline covariates. Weighting subjects by the inverse probability of treatment received creates a synthetic sample in which treatment assignment is independent of measured baseline covariates. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score allows one to obtain unbiased estimates of average treatment effects. However, these estimates are only valid if there are no residual systematic differences in observed baseline characteristics between treated and control subjects in the sample weighted by the estimated inverse probability of treatment. We report on a systematic literature review, in which we found that the use of IPTW has increased rapidly in recent years, but that in the most recent year, a majority of studies did not formally examine whether weighting balanced measured covariates between treatment groups. We then proceed to describe a suite of quantitative and qualitative methods that allow one to assess whether measured baseline covariates are balanced between treatment groups in the weighted sample. The quantitative methods use the weighted standardized difference to compare means, prevalences, higher‐order moments, and interactions. The qualitative methods employ graphical methods to compare the distribution of continuous baseline covariates between treated and control subjects in the weighted sample. Finally, we illustrate the application of these methods in an empirical case study. We propose a formal set of balance diagnostics that contribute towards an evolving concept of ‘best practice’ when using IPTW to estimate causal treatment effects using observational data. © 2015 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis

              Abstract Objective To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 26 June 2020, along with preprint servers, social media, and reference lists. Study selection Cohort studies reporting the rates, clinical manifestations (symptoms, laboratory and radiological findings), risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed covid-19. Data extraction At least two researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with estimates pooled as odds ratios and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses will be updated regularly. Results 77 studies were included. Overall, 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to14%; 28 studies, 11 432 women) of pregnant and recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital for any reason were diagnosed as having suspected or confirmed covid-19. The most common clinical manifestations of covid-19 in pregnancy were fever (40%) and cough (39%). Compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 were less likely to report symptoms of fever (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.85; I2=74%; 5 studies; 80 521 women) and myalgia (0.48, 0.45 to 0.51; I2=0%; 3 studies; 80 409 women) and were more likely to need admission to an intensive care unit (1.62, 1.33 to 1.96; I2=0%) and invasive ventilation (1.88, 1.36 to 2.60; I2=0%; 4 studies, 91 606 women). 73 pregnant women (0.1%, 26 studies, 11 580 women) with confirmed covid-19 died from any cause. Increased maternal age (1.78, 1.25 to 2.55; I2=9%; 4 studies; 1058 women), high body mass index (2.38, 1.67 to 3.39; I2=0%; 3 studies; 877 women), chronic hypertension (2.0, 1.14 to 3.48; I2=0%; 2 studies; 858 women), and pre-existing diabetes (2.51, 1.31 to 4.80; I2=12%; 2 studies; 858 women) were associated with severe covid-19 in pregnancy. Pre-existing maternal comorbidity was a risk factor for admission to an intensive care unit (4.21, 1.06 to 16.72; I2=0%; 2 studies; 320 women) and invasive ventilation (4.48, 1.40 to 14.37; I2=0%; 2 studies; 313 women). Spontaneous preterm birth rate was 6% (95% confidence interval 3% to 9%; I2=55%; 10 studies; 870 women) in women with covid-19. The odds of any preterm birth (3.01, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 7.85; I2=1%; 2 studies; 339 women) was high in pregnant women with covid-19 compared with those without the disease. A quarter of all neonates born to mothers with covid-19 were admitted to the neonatal unit (25%) and were at increased risk of admission (odds ratio 3.13, 95% confidence interval 2.05 to 4.78, I2=not estimable; 1 study, 1121 neonates) than those born to mothers without covid-19. Conclusion Pregnant and recently pregnant women are less likely to manifest covid-19 related symptoms of fever and myalgia than non-pregnant women of reproductive age and are potentially more likely to need intensive care treatment for covid-19. Pre-existing comorbidities, high maternal age, and high body mass index seem to be risk factors for severe covid-19. Preterm birth rates are high in pregnant women with covid-19 than in pregnant women without the disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020178076. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                0098-7484
                March 24 2022
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]School of Nursing and Health Professions, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California
                [5 ]Department of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California
                [6 ]Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [7 ]Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [8 ]ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [9 ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [10 ]Centre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
                [11 ]Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [12 ]Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [13 ]Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [14 ]Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [15 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [16 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [17 ]Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [18 ]School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [19 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [20 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [21 ]Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [22 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [23 ]Maternal-infant Care Research Centre, Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [24 ]Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [25 ]School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                Article
                10.1001/jama.2022.4255
                35323842
                a7568c83-3036-43f3-ab2f-55fab510267b
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content3,468

                Cited by60

                Most referenced authors707