Infection-related preterm birth (PTB) is more common at early gestational ages and is associated with major neonatal mortality and morbidity. Abnormal genital tract microflora in early pregnancy predicts late miscarriage and early PTB. Accordingly, it is logical to consider antibiotics as an intervention. Unfortunately, the conclusions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR&MAs) carried out in an attempt to explain the confusion over the heterogeneity of individual studies are flawed by the fact that undue reliance was placed on studies which: (a) had a suboptimal choice of antibiotic (mainly metronidazole) or used antibiotics not recommended for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis (BV) or BV-related organisms; (b) used antibiotics too late in pregnancy to influence outcome (23-27 weeks); and (c) included women whose risk of PTB was not due to abnormal genital tract colonization and hence unlikely to respond to antibiotics. These risks included: (a) previous PTB of indeterminate etiology; (b) low weight/body mass index; or (c) detection of fetal fibronectin, ureaplasmas, Group B streptococcus or Trichomonas vaginalis). While individual studies have found benefit of antibiotic intervention for the prevention of PTB, in meta-analyses these effects have been negated by large methodologically flawed studies with negative results. As a result, many clinicians think that any antibiotic given at any time in pregnancy to any woman at risk of PTB will cause more harm than good. Recently, a more focused SR&MA has demonstrated that antibiotics active against BV-related organisms, used in women whose risk of PTB is due to abnormal microflora, and used early in pregnancy before irreversible inflammatory damage has occurred, can reduce the rate of PTB. This review presents those data, the background and attempts to explain the confusion using new information from culture-independent molecular-based techniques. It also gives guidance on the structure of putative future antibiotic intervention studies.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,270,448
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#13,567
of 32,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,850
of 275,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#59
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 275,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
