↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of vaginal candidiasis for the prevention of preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Treatment of vaginal candidiasis for the prevention of preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0018-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine L Roberts, Charles S Algert, Kristen L Rickard, Jonathan M Morris

Abstract

Recognition that ascending infection leads to preterm birth has led to a number of studies that have evaluated the treatment of vaginal infections in pregnancy to reduce preterm birth rates. However, the role of candidiasis is relatively unexplored. Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether treatment of pregnant women with vulvovaginal candidiasis reduces preterm birth rates and other adverse birth outcomes. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which pregnant women were treated for vulvovaginal candidiasis (compared to placebo or no treatment) and where preterm birth was reported as an outcome. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase databases to January 2014. Trial eligibility and outcomes were pre-specified. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies against the agreed criteria and extracted relevant data using a standard data extraction form. Meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effects model. There were two eligible RCTs both among women with asymptomatic candidiasis, with a total of 685 women randomised. Both trials compared treatment with usual care (no screening for, or treatment of, asymptomatic candidiasis). Data from one trial involved a post-hoc subgroup analysis (n = 586) of a larger trial of treatment of 4,429 women with asymptomatic infections in pregnancy and the other was a pilot study (n = 99). There was a significant reduction in spontaneous preterm births in treated compared with untreated women (meta-analysis RR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.75). Other outcomes were reported by one or neither trial. This systematic review found two trials comparing the treatment of asymptomatic vaginal candidiasis in pregnancy for the outcome of preterm birth. Although the effect estimate suggests that treatment of asymptomatic candidiasis may reduce the risk of preterm birth, the result needs to be interpreted with caution as the primary driver for the pooled estimate comes from a post-hoc (unplanned) subgroup analysis. A prospective trial with sufficient power to answer the clinical question 'does treatment of asymptomatic candidiasis in early pregnancy prevent preterm birth' is warranted. PROSPERO CRD42014009241.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 8 9%
Other 23 25%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 14 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,417,132
of 15,791,413 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#492
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,579
of 226,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,791,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,325 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them