Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Mar;12(1):50-61.
doi: 10.1097/01.XEB.0000444636.80841.c9.

Recommendations from international clinical guidelines for routine antenatal infection screening: does evidence matter?

Affiliations
Review

Recommendations from international clinical guidelines for routine antenatal infection screening: does evidence matter?

Brigitte Piso et al. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2014 Mar.

Abstract

Aim: Maternal infections in pregnancy may cause severe child morbidity. In this article, we aim to summarise recommendations from international evidence-based clinical guidelines for infection screening in pregnancy.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search for evidence-based guidelines in two databases (Guidelines International Network and National Guideline Clearinghouse) and a hand search on websites of international institutions and societies that develop evidence-based guidelines. We considered guidelines published from the 1 of January 2007 onwards and developed in Western, industrialised countries. The guidelines in our analysis had to be based on a systematic literature search in at least two databases and needed to provide recommendations explicitly linked to the evidence. We included five general antenatal clinical practice guidelines from Australia, UK and the United States and 20 disease-specific guidelines published by Canadian, German, UK and US guideline development groups.

Results: The comparison of evidence-based guidelines from nine different guideline development groups for 17 antenatal infection screenings showed variations in directions (pro-screening or contra-screening) as well as in grades of recommendations. Uniformly, all-pro-universal or all-contra-universal screening recommendations were identified for 10 of 17 diseases. Contradictions were primarily observed for group B streptococcus, chlamydia trachomatis, genital herpes and gonorrhoea infection screening. Whereas certainty of recommendations was high for all-pro-screening recommendations, it decreased in all-contra-screening recommendations and even displayed conflicting results for contradictory recommendations.

Conclusion: The variety of grades of recommendations hamper across-guideline comparison. Nevertheless, the article highlights agreed screening areas based on the best available evidence as well as areas of still existing uncertainty. Local health policy decisions on whether to include or refrain from including screening measures in preventive care programmes can be facilitated by the comparison of recommendations from international evidence-based guidelines. Beyond the availability of evidence each country's health policy makers will have to make a judgement on the value of the test for a population-wide screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources