-
Systematic Reviews Mar 2019Measuring and monitoring progress towards Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 4 and 5 required valid and reliable estimates of maternal and child mortality. In South...
BACKGROUND
Measuring and monitoring progress towards Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 4 and 5 required valid and reliable estimates of maternal and child mortality. In South Africa, there are conflicting reports on the estimates of maternal and neonatal mortality, derived from both direct and indirect estimation techniques. This study aimed to systematically review the estimates made of maternal and neonatal mortality in the period from 1990 to 2015 in South Africa and determine trends over this period.
METHODS
Nationally-representative studies reporting on maternal and neonatal mortality in South Africa were included for synthesis. Literature search for eligible studies was conducted in five electronic databases: Medline, Africa-Wide Information, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL. Searches were restricted to articles written in English and presenting data covering the period between 1990 and 2015. Reference lists of retrieved articles were screened for additional publications, and grey literature was searched for relevant documents for the review. Three independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extractions and achieving consensus.
RESULTS
In total, 969 studies were retrieved and 670 screened for eligibility yielding 25 studies reporting data on maternal mortality and 14 studies on neonatal mortality. Most of the studies had a low risk of bias. Estimates from the institutional reporting differed from the international metrics with wide uncertainty/confidence intervals. Moreover, modelled estimates were widely divergent from estimates obtained through empirical methods. In the last two decades, both maternal and neonatal mortality appear to have increased up to 2009, followed by a decrease, more pronounced in the care of maternal mortality.
CONCLUSION
Estimates from both global metrics and institutional reporting, although widely divergent, indicate South Africa has not achieved MDG 4a and 5a goals but made a significant progress in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality. To obtain more accurate estimates, there is a need for applying additional estimation techniques which utilise available multiple data sources to correct for underreporting of these outcomes, perhaps the capture-recapture method.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016042769.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Maternal Mortality; South Africa
PubMed: 30917874
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-0991-y -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Nov 2023Maternal mortality is a universal public health challenge. ICD-Maternal Mortality (ICD-MM) was introduced in 2012 to facilitate the gathering, analysis, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Maternal mortality is a universal public health challenge. ICD-Maternal Mortality (ICD-MM) was introduced in 2012 to facilitate the gathering, analysis, and interpretation of data on maternal deaths worldwide. The present study aimed to estimate the global prevalence of maternal death causes through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using various databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, as well as Persian databases such as MagIran and Scientific Information Database (SID). The search encompassed articles published until August 21, 2022. Thirty-four eligible articles were included in the final analysis. Analysis was performed using a meta-analysis approach. The exact Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals, heterogeneity assessment, and random effects models with Mantel-Haenszel methods were employed using the STATA software version 14.2.
RESULTS
The most prevalent causes of maternal deaths, listed in descending order from highest to lowest prevalence, were non-obstetric complications (48.32%), obstetric hemorrhage (17.63%), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium (14.01%), other obstetric complications (7.11%), pregnancy with abortive outcome (5.41%), pregnancy-related infection (5.26%), unanticipated complications of management (2.25%), unknown/undetermined causes (2.01%), and coincidental causes (1.59%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Non-obstetric complications, obstetric hemorrhage, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, childbirth, and puerperium were the most common causes of maternal deaths. To reduce the burden of maternal mortality causes, increasing awareness and promoting self-care management among women of reproductive age, and implementing effective screening mechanisms for high-risk mothers during pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium can play a significant role. ICD-MM enables the uniform collection and comparison of maternal death information at different levels (local, national, and international) by facilitating the consistent collection, analysis, and interpretation of data on maternal deaths. Our findings can be utilized by policymakers and managers at various levels to facilitate necessary planning aimed at reducing the burden of maternal mortality causes.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Maternal Mortality; Maternal Death; Prevalence; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 38017449
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-06142-y -
PloS One 2018Pregnancy-related critical illness leads to death for 3-14% of affected women. Although identifying patients at risk could facilitate preventive strategies, guide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Pregnancy-related critical illness leads to death for 3-14% of affected women. Although identifying patients at risk could facilitate preventive strategies, guide therapy, and help in clinical research, no prior systematic review of this literature exploring the validity of risk prediction models for maternal mortality exists. Therefore, we have systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed risk prediction models for maternal mortality.
METHODS
Search strategy: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus, from inception to May 2017. Selection criteria: Trials or observational studies evaluating risk prediction models for maternal mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data on prediction performance.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies that evaluated 12 different mortality prediction models were included. Mortality varied across the studies, with an average rate 10.4%, ranging from 0 to 41.7%. The Collaborative Integrated Pregnancy High-dependency Estimate of Risk (CIPHER) model and the Maternal Severity Index had the best performance, were developed and validated from studies of obstetric population with a low risk of bias. The CIPHER applies to critically ill obstetric patients (discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.823 (0.811-0.835), calibration: graphic plot [intercept-0.09, slope 0.92]). The Maternal Severity Index applies to hospitalized obstetric patients (discrimination: AUC 0.826 [0.802-0.851], calibration: standardized mortality ratio 1.02 [0.86-1.20]).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the high heterogeneity of the study populations and the limited number of studies validating the finally eligible prediction models, the CIPHER and the Maternal Severity Index are recommended for use among critically ill and hospitalized pregnant and postpartum women for risk adjustment in clinical research and quality improvement studies. Neither index has sufficient discrimination to be applicable for clinical decision making at the individual patient level.
Topics: Area Under Curve; Critical Illness; Databases, Factual; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Maternal Mortality; Pregnancy; ROC Curve; Risk
PubMed: 30513118
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208563 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Apr 2017To investigate, within so-called general populations, the relationship between maternal survival and mortality of children younger than five years. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate, within so-called general populations, the relationship between maternal survival and mortality of children younger than five years.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of literature published between January 1990 and November 2016 that reported maternal vital status and the corresponding mortality of children younger than five years. Seven studies were included in a qualitative analysis and four in a random-effects meta-analysis. Summary estimates of the odds of dying by maternal survival were obtained and statistical heterogeneity estimated. Quality of the included studies and evidence was assessed using a Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, respectively.
FINDINGS
Among children younger than five years, those whose mother had died were found to be 4.09 times (95% confidence interval, CI: 2.40-6.98) more likely to die than those with surviving mothers. Due to heterogeneity (I: 83%), further pooled estimates were not possible. For children that were motherless as a result of maternal mortality, the increased odds of dying ranged from 1.40 (95% CI: 0.47-4.21) to 2.92 (95% CI: 1.21-7.04) among those aged between two and four years, 6.1 (95% CI: 2.27-16.77) to 33.78 (95% CI: 24.21-47.14) for those younger than one year and 4.39 (95% CI: 3.34-5.78) to 51.68 (95% CI: 20.26-131.80) for those younger than six months.
CONCLUSION
The loss of a mother was associated with increased mortality among children, especially when maternal death occurred in the first year of the child's life.
Topics: Child Mortality; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Maternal Death; Mothers; Survivors
PubMed: 28479623
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.15.157149 -
Tropical Medicine & International... Apr 2014To assess whether the lack of water or the lack of sanitation facilities in either the home or in health facilities is associated with an increased risk of maternal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether the lack of water or the lack of sanitation facilities in either the home or in health facilities is associated with an increased risk of maternal mortality and to quantify the effect sizes.
METHODS
Systematic review of published literature in Medline, Embase, Popline and Africa Wide EBSCO 1980.
RESULTS
Fourteen articles were found. Four of five ecological studies that considered sanitation found that poor sanitation was associated with higher maternal mortality. Meta-analysis of adjusted estimates in individual-level studies indicated that women in households with poor sanitation had 3.07 (95% CI 1.72-5.49) higher odds of maternal mortality. Four of six ecological studies assessing water environment found that poor water environment was associated with higher maternal mortality. The only individual-level study looking at the adjusted effect of water showed a significant association with maternal mortality (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.10). Two ecological and one facility-based study found an association between a combined measure of water and sanitation environment and maternal mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence of association between sanitation and maternal mortality and between water and maternal mortality. Both associations are of substantial magnitude and are maintained after adjusting for confounders. However, these conclusions are based on a very small number of studies, few of which set out to examine sanitation or water as risk factors, and only some of which adjusted for potential confounders. Nevertheless, there are plausible pathways through which such associations may operate.
Topics: Africa; Databases, Bibliographic; Female; Humans; Maternal Mortality; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Sanitation; Sepsis; Sewage; Water Microbiology; Water Pollutants; Water Supply
PubMed: 24506558
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12275 -
The Lancet. Global Health May 2016The risk factors contributing to maternal mortality from anaesthesia in low-income and middle-income countries and the burden of the problem have not been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The risk factors contributing to maternal mortality from anaesthesia in low-income and middle-income countries and the burden of the problem have not been comprehensively studied up to now. We aimed to obtain precise estimates of anaesthesia-attributed deaths in pregnant women exposed to anaesthesia and to identify the factors linked to adverse outcomes in pregnant women exposed to anaesthesia in low-income and middle-income countries.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched major electronic databases from inception until Oct 1, 2015, for studies reporting risks of maternal death from anaesthesia in low-income and middle-income countries. Studies were included if they assessed maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women exposed to anaesthesia for an obstetric procedure in countries categorised as low-income or middle-income by the World Bank. We excluded studies in high-income countries, those involving non-pregnant women, case reports, and studies published before 1990 to ensure that the estimates reflect the current burden of the condition. Two independent reviewers undertook quality assessment and data extraction. We computed odds ratios for risk factors and anaesthesia-related complications, and pooled them using a random effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015015805.
FINDINGS
44 studies (632,556 pregnancies) reported risks of death from anaesthesia in women who had an obstetric surgical procedure; 95 (32,149,636 pregnancies and 36,144 deaths) provided rates of anaesthesia-attributed deaths as a proportion of maternal deaths. The risk of death from anaesthesia in women undergoing obstetric procedures was 1·2 per 1000 women undergoing obstetric procedures (95% CI 0·8-1·7, I(2)=83%). Anaesthesia accounted for 2·8% (2·4-3·4, I(2)=75%) of all maternal deaths, 3·5% (2·9-4·3, I(2)=79%) of direct maternal deaths (ie, those that resulted from obstetric complications), and 13·8% (9·0-20·7, I(2)=84%) of deaths after caesarean section. Exposure to general anaesthesia increased the odds of maternal (odds ratio [OR] 3·3, 95% CI 1·2-9·0, I(2)=58%), and perinatal deaths (2·3, 1·2-4·1, I(2)=73%) compared with neuraxial anaesthesia. The rate of any maternal death was 9·8 per 1000 anaesthetics (5·2-15·7, I(2)=92%) when managed by non-physician anaesthetists compared with 5·2 per 1000 (0·9-12·6, I(2)=95%) when managed by physician anaesthetists.
INTERPRETATION
The current international priority on strengthening health systems should address the risk factors such as general anaesthesia and rural setting for improving anaesthetic care in pregnant women.
FUNDING
Ammalife Charity and ELLY Appeal, Bart's Charity.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesiologists; Cesarean Section; Developing Countries; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Maternal Mortality; Nurse Anesthetists; Obstetric Surgical Procedures; Odds Ratio; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27102195
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30003-1 -
BMC Medical Research Methodology Jul 2004Reducing maternal mortality and morbidity are among the key international development goals. A prerequisite for monitoring the progress towards attainment of these goals... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Reducing maternal mortality and morbidity are among the key international development goals. A prerequisite for monitoring the progress towards attainment of these goals is accurate assessment of the levels of mortality and morbidity. In order to contribute to mapping the global burden of reproductive ill-health, we are conducting a systematic review of incidence and prevalence of maternal mortality and morbidity.
METHODS
We followed the standard methodology for systematic reviews. We prepared a protocol and a form for data extraction that identify key characteristics on study and reporting quality. An extensive search was conducted for the years 1997-2002 including electronic and hand searching.
RESULTS
We screened the titles and abstracts of about 65,000 citations identified through 11 electronic databases as well as various other sources. Four thousand six hundred and twenty-six full-text reports were critically appraised and 2443 are included in the review so far. Approximately one third of the studies were conducted in Asia and Africa. The reporting quality was generally low with definitions for conditions and the diagnostic methods often not reported.
CONCLUSIONS
There are unique challenges and issues regarding the search, critical appraisal and summarizing epidemiological data in this systematic review of prevalence/incidence studies. More methodological studies and discussion to advance the field will be useful. Considerable efforts including leadership, consensus building and resources are required to improve the standards of monitoring burden of disease.
Topics: Adult; Cohort Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Maternal Mortality; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prevalence; World Health Organization
PubMed: 15236664
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-16 -
BMC Public Health Dec 2022This systematic review was conducted to map the literature on all the existing evidence regarding individual and ecological determinants of maternal mortality in the...
BACKGROUND
This systematic review was conducted to map the literature on all the existing evidence regarding individual and ecological determinants of maternal mortality in the world and to classify them based on the income level of countries. Such a systematic review had not been conducted before.
METHODS
We conducted an electronic search for primary and review articles using "Maternal Mortality" and "Determinant" as keywords or MeSH terms in their Title or Abstract, indexed in Scopus, PubMed, and Google with no time or geographical limitation and also hand searching was performed for most relevant journals. STROBE and Glasgow university critical appraisal checklists were used for quality assessment of the included studies. Data of the determinants were extracted and classified into individual or ecological categories based on income level of the countries according to World Bank classification.
RESULTS
In this review, 109 original studies and 12 review articles from 33 countries or at global level met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were published after 2013. Most literature studied determinants of low and lower-middle-income countries. The most important individual determinants in low and lower-middle-income countries were location of birth, maternal education, any delays in health services seeking, prenatal care and skilled birth attendance. Household-related determinants in low-income countries included improved water source and sanitation system, region of residence, house condition, wealth of household, and husband education. Additionally, ecological determinants including human resources, access to medical equipment and facilities, total fertility rate, health financing system, country income, poverty rate, governance, education, employment, social protection, gender inequality, and human development index were found to be important contributors in maternal mortality. A few factors were more important in higher-income countries than lower-income countries including parity, IVF births, older mothers, and type of delivery.
CONCLUSION
A comprehensive list of factors associated with maternal death was gathered through this systematic review, most of which were related to lower-income countries. It seems that the income level of the countries makes a significant difference in determinants of maternal mortality in the world.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Developing Countries; Maternal Mortality; Poverty; Income; Parturition
PubMed: 36522731
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14686-5 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2009The differentiation between postnatal depression and other types of depression is often unclear, but there are treatment issues in nursing mothers that do not apply in... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The differentiation between postnatal depression and other types of depression is often unclear, but there are treatment issues in nursing mothers that do not apply in other situations. Overall, the prevalence of depression in postpartum women is the same as the prevalence in women generally, at about 12-13%. Suicide is a major cause of maternal mortality in resource-rich countries, but rates are lower in women postpartum than in women who have not had a baby.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, and of non-drug treatments, for postnatal depression? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 34 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: group cognitive behavioural therapy, hormones, individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), infant massage by mother, interpersonal psychotherapy, light therapy, mother-infant interaction coaching, non-directive counselling, other antidepressants, physical exercise, psychodynamic therapy, psychoeducation with partner, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), St John's Wort, telephone-based peer support.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depression, Postpartum; Humans; Incidence; Mother-Child Relations; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 19445768
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Pre-eclampsia is associated with deficient intravascular production of prostacyclin, a vasodilator, and excessive production of thromboxane, a vasoconstrictor and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pre-eclampsia is associated with deficient intravascular production of prostacyclin, a vasodilator, and excessive production of thromboxane, a vasoconstrictor and stimulant of platelet aggregation. These observations led to the hypotheses that antiplatelet agents, low-dose aspirin in particular, might prevent or delay development of pre-eclampsia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antiplatelet agents, such as aspirin and dipyridamole, when given to women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 March 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search in September 2019 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials comparing antiplatelet agents with either placebo or no antiplatelet agent were included. Studies only published in abstract format were eligible for inclusion if sufficient information was available. We would have included cluster-randomised trials in the analyses along with individually-randomised trials, if any had been identified in our search strategy. Quasi-random studies were excluded. Participants were pregnant women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia. Interventions were administration of an antiplatelet agent (such as low-dose aspirin or dipyridamole), comparisons were either placebo or no antiplatelet.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For this update we incorporated individual participant data (IPD) from trials with this available, alongside aggregate data (AD) from trials where it was not, in order to enable reliable subgroup analyses and inclusion of two key new outcomes. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventy-seven trials (40,249 women, and their babies) were included, although three trials (relating to 233 women) did not contribute data to the meta-analysis. Nine of the trials contributing data were large (> 1000 women recruited), accounting for 80% of women recruited. Although the trials took place in a wide range of countries, all of the nine large trials involved only women in high-income and/or upper middle-income countries. IPD were available for 36 trials (34,514 women), including all but one of the large trials. Low-dose aspirin alone was the intervention in all the large trials, and most trials overall. Dose in the large trials was 50 mg (1 trial, 1106 women), 60 mg (5 trials, 22,322 women), 75mg (1 trial, 3697 women) 100 mg (1 trial, 3294 women) and 150 mg (1 trial, 1776 women). Most studies were either low risk of bias or unclear risk of bias; and the large trials were all low risk of bas. Antiplatelet agents versus placebo/no treatment The use of antiplatelet agents reduced the risk of proteinuric pre-eclampsia by 18% (36,716 women, 60 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88; high-quality evidence), number needed to treat for one women to benefit (NNTB) 61 (95% CI 45 to 92). There was a small (9%) reduction in the RR for preterm birth <37 weeks (35,212 women, 47 trials; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95, high-quality evidence), NNTB 61 (95% CI 42 to 114), and a 14% reduction infetal deaths, neonatal deaths or death before hospital discharge (35,391 babies, 52 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95; high-quality evidence), NNTB 197 (95% CI 115 to 681). Antiplatelet agents slightly reduced the risk of small-for-gestational age babies (35,761 babies, 50 trials; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92; high-quality evidence), NNTB 146 (95% CI 90 to 386), and pregnancies with serious adverse outcome (a composite outcome including maternal death, baby death, pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational age, and preterm birth) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96; 17,382 women; 13 trials, high-quality evidence), NNTB 54 (95% CI 34 to 132). Antiplatelet agents probably slightly increase postpartum haemorrhage > 500 mL (23,769 women, 19 trials; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; moderate-quality evidence due to clinical heterogeneity), and they probably marginally increase the risk of placental abruption, although for this outcome the evidence was downgraded due to a wide confidence interval including the possibility of no effect (30,775 women; 29 trials; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54; moderate-quality evidence). Data from two large trials which assessed children at aged 18 months (including results from over 5000 children), did not identify clear differences in development between the two groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Administering low-dose aspirin to pregnant women led to small-to-moderate benefits, including reductions in pre-eclampsia (16 fewer per 1000 women treated), preterm birth (16 fewer per 1000 treated), the baby being born small-for-gestational age (seven fewer per 1000 treated) and fetal or neonatal death (five fewer per 1000 treated). Overall, administering antiplatelet agents to 1000 women led to 20 fewer pregnancies with serious adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence for all these outcomes was high. Aspirin probably slightly increased the risk of postpartum haemorrhage of more than 500 mL, however, the quality of evidence for this outcome was downgraded to moderate, due to concerns of clinical heterogeneity in measurements of blood loss. Antiplatelet agents probably marginally increase placental abruption, but the quality of the evidence was downgraded to moderate due to low event numbers and thus wide 95% CI. Overall, antiplatelet agents improved outcomes, and at these doses appear to be safe. Identifying women who are most likely to respond to low-dose aspirin would improve targeting of treatment. As almost all the women in this review were recruited to the trials after 12 weeks' gestation, it is unclear whether starting treatment before 12 weeks' would have additional benefits without any increase in adverse effects. While there was some indication that higher doses of aspirin would be more effective, further studies would be warranted to examine this.
Topics: Aspirin; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Maternal Mortality; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31684684
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004659.pub3