Psychological impact of infectious disease outbreaks on pregnant women: rapid evidence review

  1. S.K. Brooks
  2. D. Weston
  3. N. Greenberg

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.09.006
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.16.20068031: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableSearch terms were: Selection criteria: To be included in the review, studies had to: i) report primary data; ii) be published in peer-reviewed journals; iii) be written in English; and iv) report on any psychological effects of emerging infectious disease outbreaks on women who were pregnant at the time of the outbreak.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search strategy: The following databases were searched: Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Global Health and Web of Science.
    Medline
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    PsycInfo
    suggested: (PsycINFO, RRID:SCR_014799)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Screening: The authors ran the search strategy and downloaded citations from all databases to EndNote version X9 (Thomson Reuters, New York, United States) where duplicates were automatically removed.
    EndNote
    suggested: (EndNote, RRID:SCR_014001)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Data screening, extraction and analysis were carried out by only one author, due to the rapid nature of the review; in typical systematic reviews, it is preferable for double-screening to take place and for multiple reviewers to analyse the data to enhance the validity of the review. However, the resultant data was discussed with all authors as the paper went through multiple revisions prior to submission. Searches were limited to English-language papers due to lack of time to get foreign-language papers translated, meaning evidence may have been missed. The generalisability of the studies reviewed is not clear, as much may depend on the cultural context. No standardised quality appraisal of the included papers was carried out, as is common in rapid evidence reviews (Haby et al., 2016). However, there were some particularly notable limitations to the literature, such as low response rates and a lack of quantitative research. It must also be noted that only one study (Lee et al., 2006) compared mental health outcomes for women pregnant during an outbreak with a pre-outbreak control group of pregnant women. For that reason, it is difficult to fully ascertain the mental health-related differences in being pregnant during a disease outbreak and being pregnant at any other time. There was also no research directly comparing pregnant women with the non-pregnant population during an outbreak, so again, we cannot say whether pregnant women are more likely to experience s...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.16.20068031 on medRxiv