1 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
Oxford University
Nuffield Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
An analysis of the HIV-associated population attributable risk for adverse
pregnancy outcome, in ART-naïve mothers.
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Opope Oyaka Wedi Student number: 2823644
Cell no: 07435389225
Email: [email protected]
Supervisors:
Professor Stephen. Kennedy Dr. Joris. Hemelaar
Oxford University Oxford University
Nuffield Department of Obstetrics
& Gynaecology
Nuffield Department of Obstetrics &
Gynaecology
Tel no: +44(0) 1865 221004 Tel no: +44(0) 865 221004
Email: [email protected]
Email:[email protected]
2 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
Table of Contents 1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 3
2 Objectives of the review ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Primary objective .....................................................................................................................6 2.2 Secondary objectives ................................................................................................................6
3 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria ..............................................................................................6 3.1.1 Study design ........................................................................................................................6 3.1.2 Setting .................................................................................................................................7 3.1.3 Population of interest ..........................................................................................................7 3.1.4 Exposure of interest .............................................................................................................7
3.2 Outcome measures ....................................................................................................................8 3.2.1 Primary outcomes ................................................................................................................8 3.2.2 Secondary outcomes ............................................................................................................9
3.3 Search methods for identification of studies ..........................................................................9 3.4 Study collection and critical appraisal .................................................................................10
3.4.1 Stage 1: Title and abstract screens ....................................................................................10 3.4.2 Stage 2: Eligibility criteria ................................................................................................11 3.4.3 Stage 3: Quality appraisal of papers ..................................................................................11
3.5 Data Extraction .......................................................................................................................13 3.6 Data synthesis ..........................................................................................................................13
3.6.1 Summary of findings .........................................................................................................13 3.6.2 Data analysis .....................................................................................................................13 3.6.3 Subgroup analysis .............................................................................................................14 3.6.4 Unit of analysis .................................................................................................................14 3.6.5 Sensitivity analysis: ...........................................................................................................14 3.6.6 Assessment of heterogeneity: ............................................................................................15 3.6.7 Publication bias .................................................................................................................15
References ............................................................................................................................... 15
3 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
1 Background
As the 2015 Millennium Development Goal (MDG) deadline approaches, concerns about
stagnating perinatal mortality and morbidity statistics are being expressed worldwide.1–6 The
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) epidemic, a known contributor to poor maternal 7–10
and fetal11 outcome, continues to affect 34 million people (31.4 million-35.9 million)
globally, 69% of which reside in sub-Saharan Africa.12 Despite an overall decline in new
HIV infections since 2001 (20% decline), annual trends in the Middle East and North African
states have shown a 35% increase in the incidence of HIV.12
One of the major gains made during the HIV epidemic has been the decline in mother to child
transmission (MTCT).12 This decline has been attributed to the implementation of prevention
of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) programs, in addition to the adoption of specific
intrapartum guidelines and infant feeding practices.12–14 In the developed world, the initiation
of antiretroviral treatment (ART) has contributed to the reduction in MTCT rates to less than
1-2%.14 Furthermore, PMTCT programs have facilitated the early diagnosis and treatment of
pregnant women affected by the disease, which translates to improved perinatal maternal
outcome and reduced maternal mortality rate.9 Despite the benefits of ART, adverse
pregnancy outcome in the presence of maternal HIV infection continues to persist.
Preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW) and stillbirth are widely acknowledged global
causes of perinatal morbidity and mortality.15–17 Preterm birth was the leading cause of
neonatal death in 2010 6 accounting for 1.078 million (95%CI 0.916-1.325million) of all
neonatal deaths (3.072 million), 6,18 while an estimated 3.2 million stillbirths occur
annually.16 The debate as to the role of maternal HIV infection as a risk factor for adverse
pregnancy outcome is still ongoing. 19 Some studies have reported an increased incidence of
adverse pregnancy outcome in HIV infected women, 20,21 while others dispute this finding.22
Furthermore, numerous studies have observed an increase risk of adverse pregnancy outcome
in women receiving ART during their pregnancy, but this has also been disputed,23,24 with
one paper stating that preterm birth rates in these women were similar to those found in the
HIV negative population. 25
The association between HIV and adverse pregnancy outcome is a contentious issue, as it
would have over arching implications for millions of HIV infected women. The fact that ART
4 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
could potentially exacerbate this effect would mean that millions of neonatal deaths would
have been caused by the only treatment we have available. This dilemma stems from the fact
that to date we still do not know what effect the HIV virus has on pregnancy outcome, in
comparison to healthy uninfected controls. Furthermore, we do not know whether ART
exacerbates this effect or alleviates it. This knowledge would enable us to determine whether
all ART regimens, including those said to have the highest risk of complications,26 are truly
associated with lower risks of adverse pregnancy outcome compared to HIV-positive women
not on treatment.
Numerous studies have attempted to assess the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome in HIV
infected women who are naïve to ART. However, many of these studies have been small with
little statistical power,27 have had biased methodologies,20,21 have not measured or controlled
known confounding factors,21,28 have not reported vital information21 and have reported
different effect sizes.29–31
Over the years systematic reviews and meta-analyses have enabled us to generate an
approximation of an overall effect size of interest, through the combination of independent
studies addressing the same effect.32–35 In 1998, Brocklehurst et al conducted a systematic
review and meta-analysis which assessed the association between maternal HIV infection and
perinatal outcome.19 They found that maternal HIV infection was associated with adverse
perinatal outcome including, PTB (OR 1.83 95%CI 1.63-2.06), LBW (OR 2.09 95%CI 1.86-
2.35), intra-uterine growth restriction (IUGR) (OR 1.7 95%CI 1.43-2.02) and stillbirth (OR
3.91 95% CI 2.65-5.77).19 However, this association was deemed weak due to the
inappropriate methodology used by the included studies, and the lack of control of
confounding factors.19
HIV is known for its genomic variability, with different types (HIV-1 and HIV-2), subtypes
(HIV-1: M, N, O, P and HIV-2: A-H),36 sub-subtypes (e.g. A1-A4),37 and recombinant forms
(e.g. CRFs and URFs).36 Different viral strains have been associated with different levels of
virulence, different rates of mother to child transmission and different levels of resistance to
ART.36,37 However, the influence of HIV diversity on adverse pregnancy outcome has not
been addressed in any review, including the Brocklehurst paper.
5 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
The variability of HIV, in addition to other causes of clinical heterogeneity (e.g. genetic
factors, maternal nutritional status, clinical/immunological stage of HIV, difference in
antenatal care availability and quality, as well as obstetric guidelines), and the methodological
heterogeneity (cohort, case-control and controlled trials) results in a substantial amount of
statistical variability which would not be taken into account when using the fixed-effect
model34,38,39 as performed by Brocklehurst et al.19 Although numerous systematic reviews
have been done looking at the influence of ART on pregnancy outcome,40,41 no updated
systematic review has been done addressing the influence of HIV on pregnancy outcome.
We aim to conduct a systemic review assessing the influence of untreated maternal HIV
infection on specific pregnancy outcomes including, PTB, LBW, small for gestational age
(SGA), intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), and stillbirth. We propose that the
heterogeneity within and between included studies would best be analysed with the use of the
random-effects model.34,35 The fixed-effect model assumes that there is homogeneity between
the studies included in the review, and that any variation in the underlying effect size being
investigated is due to sampling error.33,34,39 Conversely, the random-effect model assumes that
the underlying effect has a normal distribution,34 with the mean representing the overall
average effect.34 In systematic reviews where there is no heterogeneity between studies, the
use of the random-effects model and fixed-effects model yield similar results.35 However, in
studies where heterogeneity is present, the random-effect model incorporates both the clinical
variability and the statistical variability due to sampling error, into the analysis,39 which may
produce different results.34,35 Subgroup analyses will be used to assess the association
between known confounders and specified outcomes. Population attributable risk for adverse
outcomes will be determined and correlated with HIV subtypes identified in the region.
We aim to assess all studies and abstracts which were included in the Brocklehurst paper, in
addition to studies addressing the same questions which have been published since. This
would give us a larger sample of results to incorporate into our analysis, thus translating to
the statistical power needed to estimate the most probable effect size.35 Only when the true
effect of maternal HIV infection on perinatal outcome is clarified, can we truly assess
whether the introduction of ART has improved perinatal outcome.
6 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
2 Objectives of the review
2.1 Primary objective
The primary objective of this review is to answer the following question:
1. Do pregnant HIV-positive women, who are not exposed to any ART during the
antenatal period, have an increased risk of adverse birth outcomes compared to HIV-
negative women? The outcomes of interests include: PTB, LBW, SGA, IUGR and
stillbirth.
2.2 Secondary objectives
The secondary objectives of the review are to answer the following questions:
1. Do pregnant HIV-positive women, who are not exposed to ART during the antenatal
period, have an increased risk of miscarriage, compared to HIV-negative women?
2. Do pregnant HIV-positive women, who are not exposed to ART during the antenatal
period, have an increased risk of neonatal death (NND) compared to HIV-negative
women?
3. Do pregnant HIV-positive women infected with different HIV strains have different
risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes?
3 Methods
3.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The eligibility criteria are formulated with guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for
systematic reviews of interventions. 33 (www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook)
3.1.1 Study design
The review will analyse quantitative data obtained from primary research papers focused on
HIV/AIDS in the pregnant human population. Study designs to be reviewed include
observational studies (cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies) as well as
interventional studies (randomised controlled trial and controlled clinical trial).
7 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
3.1.2 Setting
The setting of the different studies will be taken into consideration, especially when
comparing studies compiled in high-income countries versus middle and low-income
countries as defined by the World-Bank-country-specific-income-status
http://data.worldbank.org/country.
This will enable us to compare the influence of socio-economic status, quality and access to
antenatal care facilities, as well as whether specific HIV subtypes found in different regions
are associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.
3.1.3 Population of interest
The review will include studies containing quantitative data on pregnant HIV-positive
women. These participants may be of any ethnicity, social or educational status. Details
pertaining to the maternal demography, pregnancy outcome and information regarding the
newborn should be recorded, e.g. twin deliveries, birth-weight, gestational age at birth,
mortality and morbidity regarding the baby.
Studies containing HIV-positive and HIV-negative cohorts as only a subset of the entire study
cohort will initially be included and discussed amongst the reviewers. After the discussion, a
final decision will be made regarding the retention of the paper. The study will be excluded if
it is deemed irrelevant or unsuitable for the review.
A cohort of HIV-negative pregnant women of any ethnic, social or educational background,
from the same community as the HIV-positive participants, should serve as the control group.
Studies will be excluded if they contain the following:
• Ambiguous inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• No HIV-negative pregnant participants as the control group.
• HIV-positive women who have received more than an intrapartum dose of ART
during their pregnancy
3.1.4 Exposure of interest
The exposure of interest is the HIV infection, which is contracted either before or during
pregnancy by any form of transmission (e.g. heterosexual, intravenous drug use etc.). A
8 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
healthcare worker (a doctor, nurse or HIV counsellor) should have diagnosed or confirmed
the participant’s HIV status either before or during the period in which the study was
conducted. If this is not done, the study should explain how HIV status was validated.
Participants presenting with any clinical or biochemical stage of HIV, including AIDS will be
included. Studies will not be excluded if HIV-positive pregnant participants only received
ART before the pregnancy and its use was terminated before the pregnancy for any reason,
(e.g. non-adherence) or a single ART dose was received at delivery.
Studies including HIV-positive pregnant participants who present with comorbidities or
opportunistic infections will be included. Confounding factors will be assessed and taken into
account during statistical analysis. Studies conducted on HIV-positive pregnant women that
assess other exposures will be included and only relevant data will be extracted and
synthesised.
3.2 Outcome measures
3.2.1 Primary outcomes
3.2.1.1 Preterm birth and premature preterm rupture of membrane (PPROM):
In this review we will assess papers reporting PTB, defined as birth before 37+0weeks
gestation.16 These will be categorised as follows: moderately preterm (33+0-36+6weeks), very
preterm birth (<32+0weeks) and extremely preterm birth (<28+0weeks).16 PPROM will be
assessed and the data extracted from all studies.
3.2.1.2 LBW, SGA and IUGR:
Studies will be assessed for the birth-weight of infants born to HIV-positive and negative
mothers. LBW will be defined as a birth-weight <2500g42 and Very Low Birth Weight
(VLBW) will be defined as birth-weight <1500g43 . We will also assess SGA, which for our
purposes will be defined as birth-weight-for-gestational age <10th centile as well as IUGR,
which will be defined as birth-weight-for gestational age <3rd centile.
3.2.1.3 Stillbirth and Fetal death:
The term “stillbirth” is used inconsistently in the literature, which may lead to
misclassification of the variable of interest.44 It is used interchangeably with fetal death,44
9 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
which may further result in the exclusion of vital data if we restrict ourselves to just one term.
Therefore, for the purpose of this review, we will extract stillbirth and fetal death data.
It will be defined as any third trimester delivery of a demised fetus with:
• ≥1000g birth-weight 44 or
• ≥24+0 completed weeks or
• ≥ 35cm body length 44
3.2.2 Secondary outcomes
The secondary outcomes of interest include:
3.2.2.1 Neonatal death and miscarriage:
We aim to assess whether HIV-positive women have an increased risk of neonatal death or
miscarriage compared to HIV-negative women.
Neonatal death will be defined as the death of the infant within 28 days of life and
miscarriage will be defined as the spontaneous expulsion of the fetus before 24+0weeks
gestation.
3.2.2.2 Population specific HIV-subtypes
We will assess the influence of known HIV strains in each country where the retrieved studies
are conducted. The different strains will be defined according to the type (HIV-1 and HIV-2),
subtypes (HIV-1: M, N, O, P and HIV-2: A-H), sub-subtypes (e.g. A1-A4), and recombinant
forms (e.g. CRFs and URFs). Different viral strains specific to each population will be
correlated with observed levels of adverse pregnancy outcome including: PTB, LBW, SGA,
IUGR, stillbirth, miscarriage and neonatal death and mother to child transmission rate.
3.3 Search methods for identification of studies
We will identify relevant studies through manual and electronic search strategies. The
electronic database search will include: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, and
CINAHL from January 1980 to March 2013. No methodological or language filters will be
applied. Search terms will include Mesh headings and Emtree terms for pregnancy outcome,
PTB, LBW, IUGR, SGA, stillbirth and HIV or ART in addition to free text words and
possible synonyms. The bibliographies of the relevant retrieved articles will be examined and
10 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
all relevant references will be retrieved either manually or electronically. An electronic search
of the grey literature will also be conducted to identify unpublished papers, theses, reports
and conference abstracts relevant to the systematic review. Lastly a number of experts in the
field will be contacted to enquire about additional papers that we may not have identified. All
relevant material will be included in the systematic review.
All retrieved papers will be imported into Endnote reference manager and duplicated articles
will be removed. A record will be made of all papers excluded in the de-duplication process.
3.4 Study collection and critical appraisal
The selection and critical appraisal of the papers will be conducted in 4 stages.
3.4.1 Stage 1: Title and abstract screens
Following the literature search, 2 individual reviewers will scan the titles and abstracts of all
papers retrieved to identify whether they contain data that is relevant to the systematic review.
Only papers reporting case-control, cohort, cross-sectional or interventional studies assessing
perinatal outcome in HIV-positive and HIV-negative women will be included in this initial
stage. All letters, comments, opinion pieces and case-reports will be excluded. Non-English
publications will be considered and those deemed relevant to the review will be included.
Any disagreement regarding inclusion at this stage will be discussed with a third reviewer,
who will make the final decision. All excluded studies will be recorded.
11 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
3.4.2 Stage 2: Eligibility criteria
Two independent reviewers will assess each paper as to whether they meet the eligibility
criteria. All studies which do not fulfil the eligibility criteria will be excluded. A record will
be kept as to why each paper was excluded.
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
1. HIV-positive pregnant women
2. HIV-negative pregnant control group
3. Data collected on birth-weight or gestational
age at delivery or stillbirth
1. Ambiguous inclusion criteria
2. > Stat dose of ART received during pregnancy
3. No control group
Table 1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria
3.4.3 Stage 3: Quality appraisal of papers
Two reviewers will assess each paper according to a structured pre-formulated template.
Numerous guidelines have been suggested to facilitate the improvement in the quality of
reporting of observational studies (STROBE statement) and RCTs (CONSORT).35 Although
this improves the quality of the reporting, it does not necessarily translate to a good
methodological quality.45,46 To date there is no consensus regarding a quality assessment
checklist for observational studies. 47
We anticipate a wide range in methodological quality because of the inclusion of
interventional studies as well as observational studies. Due to the vast difference in study
methodology between observational and interventional studies we have chosen to use 2
different quality assessment tools, which are specific for each group.
The quality of the interventional studies (RCT and controlled studies) will be assessed
according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool kit (Appendix 1). Study quality will be categorised
as follows:
• Good quality: This will include studies which have fulfilled all 5 requirements of the
risk assessment tool checklist and have no additional sources of bias.
• Average quality: This will include studies which have fulfilled between 2-4 of the 5
requirements of the risk assessment tool. Furthermore, they should not have any major
methodological flaws, e.g. poor randomisation or additional sources of bias.
12 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
• Poor quality studies: Studies which only fulfil <2 of the requirements or contain a
major methodological flaw.
An adaption of the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool will be used to assess all
observational studies. Study quality will be categorised as follows:
• Good quality: Studies which meet all requirements (9stars).
• Average quality: Studies which achieve >2 stars in the “selection” section and
“exposure” section, but < 9 overall.
• Poor quality: Studies which achieve ≤2 stars in both the “selection” section and the
“exposure” section of the assessment tool.
Two independent reviewers will conduct this process, and any discrepancy in quality score
will be discussed with a third reviewer, who will make the final decision.
A summary of the quality assessment results will be presented for each included study and
correlated with the effect size observed in the study.
All studies will be combined according to the quality category which they have been assigned
to e.g. good, average and low quality. Following data extraction, an overall aggregate effect
size will be calculated for all primary and secondary outcomes in relation to different ART
regimens and displayed as forest plots. Thereafter, the level of evidence will be graded
according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
System (GRADE). http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org
Levels of quality of a body of evidence in the GRADE approach
Underlying methodology Quality rating
Randomized trials; or double-upgraded observational studies. High
Downgraded randomized trials; or upgraded observational studies. Moderate
Double-downgraded randomized trials; or observational studies. Low
Triple-downgraded randomized trials; or downgraded observational studies; or case series/case reports.
Very low
Table 2: Grade of evidence
13 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
3.5 Data Extraction
Two independent reviewers will extract relevant data from the selected studies. A data
collection sheet has been developed for the purpose of the review. It will allow reviewers to
record data electronically into an Access-based database. The data extracted will include
specific details including: study descriptors (e.g. journal title, author name, year of
publication etc.), population information (e.g. maternal HIV status), outcome measures of
interest, (e.g. MTCT, PTB, LBW, SGA, stillbirth) and confounding factors identified, non-
adjusted and adjusted effect estimates, standard error, standard deviation as well as 95% CI.
Data extracted will be compared between the two reviewers and any disagreement between
authors will be resolved by discussion with the third reviewer.
3.6 Data synthesis
3.6.1 Summary of findings
A tabulated summary of all included studies will be presented with details regarding the
following variables: 33
1. Study type
2. Participants in each group (mother and infants)
3. Maternal demographic and clinical characteristics
4. Outcome measures
5. Quality assessment score and aspects which the study did not fulfil.
3.6.2 Data analysis
Summary statistics will be compiled for individual studies irrespective of quality assessment
score. All binary statistics will be recorded as relative risk ratios (RR), and results reported as
odds ratios in retrieved studies will be converted to relative risk ratios.33,34,48,49 Continuous
data will be recorded as a mean. In addition, the population attributable risk fraction (PAR)
for the adverse outcomes, namely LBW, SGA, PTB, PPROM and stillbirth, will be calculated
for each study. If we assume that maternal HIV infection is a risk factor for the above
mentioned adverse pregnancy outcomes, the PAR would enable us to better demonstrate the
proportion of these outcomes, within the study populations, which would be modified or
prevented if HIV infection were prevented.
14 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
We anticipate a heterogeneous sample of studies from the literature search; hence the null
hypothesis will be tested using a random effects model. 34 We plan to conduct several meta-
analyses of the aggregated data, with the aim of assessing the influence of HIV on the
primary outcomes of interest. Forest plots will be used to demonstrate the patterns of effect.
In instances where data cannot be pooled, a narrative summary will be produced.
3.6.3 Subgroup analysis
Subgroup analysis will be conducted to assessed the influence of possible covariates on the
observed adverse pregnancy outcome as well as additional variables:
1. Maternal demography: country, income status of country, alcohol use during
pregnancy, smoking, advanced maternal age, teenage pregnancy, ethnicity, number of
antenatal care receive and intravenous drug use.
2. HIV stage: Immunological stage (mean CD4+) or clinical stage of HIV (WHO/CDC).
3. Mother to child transmission
4. HIV subtypes
3.6.4 Unit of analysis
We aim to analyse the influence of maternal HIV infection on newborn outcome. Therefore,
we will report information relating to both the mother and the infant.
3.6.5 Sensitivity analysis:
The sensitivity analysis aims to assess the robustness of the observed effect size.50 We plan
to conduct 5 sensitivity analyses including:
1. Location of the study: low, middle and high-income country.
2. Methodological quality: high quality versus average quality
3. Study design: observational studies versus RCT
4. Control for confounding factors: studies which used methods for controlling for
known confounders and those which have not.
5. The exclusion of studies with the largest effect size.
Meta-analyses will be conducted and differences between comparisons will be reported.
15 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
3.6.6 Assessment of heterogeneity:
The statistical heterogeneity of the studies retrieved will be evaluated by comparing the study
design and setting, in addition to Chi2, τ2 and I2 statistic. The results will be assessed for
clinical and statistical relevance. 33,34 The I2 statistic will be used to test the null hypothesis of
homogeneity and quantify the percentage of heterogeneity in effect size which occur as a
consequence of between-study variability. 38,39 The result will be interpreted as: no
heterogeneity (0%), low heterogeneity (25%), moderate heterogeneity (50%) and high
heterogeneity (75%). 39,51
In the event that a small number of studies are retrieved and included in the review, we will
take the low statistical power of the I2 statistic into consideration when we report our
findings. 39
3.6.7 Publication bias
Small study bias will be assessed with the use of funnel plots.35 If any evidence of publication
bias is identified. We will explore publication bias by looking for unpublished trials on trial
registries.
References
1. Bick D. Born too soon: The global issue of preterm birth. Midwifery 2012; 28(4): 341-2.
doi:10.1016/j.midw.2012.06.010.
2. Lawn JE, Kerber K, Enweronu-Laryea C, Bateman OM. Newborn survival in low
resource settings - Are we delivering? BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 116(SUPPL. 1):
49-59. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02328.x.
3. Lawn JE, Lee ACC, Kinney M, et al. Two million intrapartum-related stillbirths and
neonatal deaths: Where, why, and what can be done? Int J Gynecol Obstet 2009;
107(SUPPL.): S5-S19. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.016.
16 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
4. Malla DS, Giri K, Karki C, Chaudhary P. Achieving millennium development goals 4
and 5 in Nepal. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 118(SUPPL. 2): 60-8. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
0528.2011.03113.x.
5. Hogan MC, Foreman KJ, Naghavi M, et al. Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–
2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5. The Lancet
2010; 375(9726): 1609-23. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60518-1.
6. Liu L, Johnson HL, Cousens S, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child
mortality: an updated systematic analysis for 2010 with time trends since 2000. The Lancet
379(9832): 2151-61.
7. Wandabwa JN, Doyle P, Longo-Mbenza B, Kiondo P, Khainza B, Othieno E,
Maconichie N. Human immunodeficiency virus and AIDS and other important predictors of
maternal mortality in Mulago Hospital Complex Kampala Uganda. BMC Public Health 2011;
11: 565. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-565.
8. Naniche D, Bardaji A, Lahuerta M, et al. Impact of maternal human immunodeficiency
virus infection on birth outcomes and infant survival in rural Mozambique. Am J Trop Med
Hyg 2009; 80(5): 870-6.
9. McIntyre J. Maternal Health and HIV. Reprod Health Matters 2005; 13(25): 129-35.
doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(05)25184-4.
10. French R, Brocklehurst P. The effect of pregnancy on survival in women infected with
HIV a systematic review of the literature and meta‐analysis. BJOG: An International Journal
of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2005; 105(8): 827-35.
17 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
11. Brahmbhatt H, Kigozi G, Wabwire-Mangen F, et al. Mortality in HIV-infected and
uninfected children of HIV-infected and uninfected mothers in rural Uganda. J Acquir
Immune Defic Syndr 2006; 41(4): 504-8.
12. UNAIDS. The Global report: UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic 2012 . ;
Avalable at:
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/epidemiology/2012/gr2012/
20121120_FactSheet_Global_en.pdf. Accessed 02/24, 2013.
13. Bailey H, Townsend C, Cortina-Borja M, Thorne C. Insufficient antiretroviral therapy
in pregnancy: Missed opportunities for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in
Europe. Antiviral Therapy 2011; 16(6): 895-903. doi:10.3851/IMP1849.
14. Nachega JB, Uthman OA, Anderson J, et al. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy during
and after pregnancy in low- income, middle- income, and high- income countries: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS 2012 26(16): 2039-52.
15. Lawn JE, Kerber K, Enweronu-Laryea C, Cousens S. 3.6 Million Neonatal Deaths—
What Is Progressing and What Is Not? Semin Perinatol 2010:34(6): 371-86.
16. Lawn JE, Gravett MG, Nunes TM, Rubens CE, Stanton C. Global report on preterm
birth and stillbirth (1 of 7): Definitions, description of the burden and opportunities to
improve data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010; 10(SUPPL. 1). doi:10.1186/1471-2393-S1-
S1.
17. Olusanya BO, Ofovwe GE. Predictors of preterm births and low birthweight in an
inner- city hospital in sub-Saharan Africa. Matern Child Health J 2009: 14(6): 978.
18 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
18. GAPPS. Global Alliance To Prevent Prematurity And Stillbirth. 2013; Avalable at:
http://gapps.org/docs/Preterm_Birth.pdf. Accessed 02/24, 2013.
19. Brocklehurst P, French R. The association between maternal HIV infection and
perinatal outcome: a systematic review of the literature and meta‐analysis. BJOG: An
International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1998; 105(8): 836-48.
20. Markson LE, Turner BJ, Houchens R, Silverman NS, Cosler L, Takyi BK. Association
of maternal HIV infection with low birth weight. Journal of acquired immune deficiency
syndromes and human retrovirology : official publication of the International Retrovirology
Association 1996:13(3): 227.
21. Bansil P, Jamieson DJ, Posner SF, Kourtis AP. Hospitalizations of pregnant HIV-
infected women in the United States in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy
(HAART). Journal of women's health (2002) 16(2): 159.
22. Castetbon K, Ladner J, Leroy V, et al. Low birthweight in infants born to African HIV-
infected women: relationship with maternal body weight during pregnancy. J Trop Pediatr
1999;45(3): 152-7.
23. Morris AB, Dobles AR, Cu-Uvin S, et al. Protease inhibitor use in 233 pregnancies.
JAIDS J Acquired Immune Defic Syndromes 2005; 40(1): 30-3.
24. Is zidovudine therapy in pregnant HIV-infected women associated with gestational age
and birthweight? The European Collaborative Study. AIDS 1999; 13(1): 119-24.
25. Dola CP, Khan R, DeNicola N, Amirgholami M, Benjamin T, Bhuiyan A, Longo S.
Combination antiretroviral therapy with protease inhibitors in HIV-infected pregnancy. J
Perinat Med 2012; 40(1): 51-5.
19 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
26. Chen JY, Ribaudo HJ, Souda S, et al. Highly active antiretroviral therapy and adverse
birth outcomes among HIV-infected women in Botswana. J Infect Dis 2012; 206(11): 1695-
705.
27. Selwyn PA, Schoenbaum EE, Davenny K, et al. Prospective study of human
immunodeficiency virus infection and pregnancy outcomes in intravenous drug users. JAMA:
the journal of the American Medical Association 1989; 261(9): 1289-94.
28. Hira SK, Kamanga J, Bhat GJ, Mwale C, Tembo G, Luo N, Perine PL. Perinatal
transmission of HIV-I in Zambia. BMJ 1989; 299(6710): 1250-2.
29. Taha TE, Dallabetta GA, Canner JK, Chiphangwi JD, Liomba G, Hoover DR, Miotti
PG. The effect of human immunodeficiency virus infection on birthweight, and infant and
child mortality in urban Malawi. Int J Epidemiol 24(5): 1022.
30. Ndirangu J, Newell M-, Bland RM, Thorne C. Maternal HIV infection associated with
small-for-gestational age infants but not preterm births: Evidence from rural South Africa.
Hum Reprod 2012; 27(6): 1846-56. doi:10.1093/humrep/des090.
31. Lepage P, Dabis F, Hitimana DG, et al. Perinatal transmission of HIV-1: lack of impact
of maternal HIV infection on characteristics of livebirths and on neonatal mortality in Kigali,
Rwanda. AIDS 5(3): 295.
32. Zwahlen M, Renehan A, Egger M. Meta-analysis in medical research: Potentials and
limitations. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 26(3): 320-9.
33. Systematic reviews : CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York:
York : CRD, University of York; 2009.
20 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
34. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions electronic resource].
Version 5.1.0. ed. S.l.]: S.l.] : The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
35. Elwood M. Critical Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials. 3rd
Edition ed. New York, USA: OUP Oxford; 2007.
36. Hemelaar J. Implications of HIV diversity for the HIV-1 pandemic. J Infect 2012; .
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2012.10.026.
37. Taylor BS, Hammer SM. The challenge of HIV-1 subtype diversity. N Engl J Med
2008; 359(18): 1965-6. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc086373.
38. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med
2002; 21(11): 1539-58. doi:10.1002/sim.1186.
39. Huedo-Medina T, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing
heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods 11(2): 193.
40. Kourtis AP, Schmid CH, Jamieson DJ, Lau J. Use of antiretroviral therapy in pregnant
HIV-infected women and the risk of premature delivery: a meta-analysis. AIDS 21(5): 607-
15.
41. Siegfried N, van der Merwe L, Brocklehurst P, Sint TT. Antiretrovirals for reducing the
risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2011; (7).
42. McCormick MC. The contribution of low birth weight to infant mortality and
childhood morbidity. NEW ENGL J MED 1985; 312(2): 82-90.
21 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
43. Villar J, Purwar M, Merialdi M, et al. World Health Organisation multicentre
randomised trial of supplementation with vitamins C and E among pregnant women at high
risk for pre-eclampsia in populations of low nutritional status from developing countries.
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; 2009.116: 6, 780-788 2009;
. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02158.x.
44. Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Pattinson R, et al. Stillbirths: Where? When? Why? How to
make the data count? Lancet 2011; 377(9775): 1448-63. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62187-
3.
45. Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Dickinson S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the
quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for
diseases. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63(10): 1061-70. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.014.
46. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S, Djulbegovic B. Bad
reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: Observational study of
randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Br Med J
2004; 328(7430): 22-4.
47. Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Jansen S. Quality of systematic reviews of observational
nontherapeutic studies. Prev Chronic Dis 2010; 7(6).
48. Wang Z. Converting the Odds Ratio to the Relative Risk with Partial Data Information.
; Avalable at:
ftp://mirrors.dotsrc.org/mirrors/cran/web/packages/orsk/vignettes/orsk_demo.pdf. Accessed
02/22, 2013.
22 Dr. OO Wedi Systematic review protocol: Comparative analysis of HIV associated adverse pregnancy outcome, in ARV-naive mothers.
49. Robbins AS, Chao SY, Fonseca VP. What's the relative risk? A method to directly
estimate risk ratios in cohort studies of common outcomes. Ann Epidemiol 2002; 12(7): 452-
4.
50. Systematic reviews in health care : meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: London :
BMJ; 2001.
51. Higgins J, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-
analysis. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-60.
Top Related