Section III: - The Future
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2019
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Fetal TherapyScientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits, pp. 561 - 587Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Hills, RK, Daniels, J. Assessing new interventions in women’s health. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 20: 713–28.Google Scholar
Altman, DG. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 1996; 313: 5701.Google Scholar
Lasagna, L. Problems in publication of clinical trial methodology. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979; 25: 751–753.Google Scholar
Macleod, MR, Michie, S, Roberts, I, Dirnagl, U, Chalmers, I, Ioannidis, JPA, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014; 383: 101–4.Google Scholar
Meher, S, Alfirevic, Z. Choice of primary outcomes in randomised trials and systematic reviews evaluating interventions for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review. BJOG. 2014; 121: 1188–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirwan, JR, Minnock, P, Adebajo, A, Bresnihan, B, Choy, E, de Wit, M, et al. Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centred outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007; 34: 1174–7.Google Scholar
Kenyon, SL, Taylor, DJ, Tarnow-Mordi, W, ORACLE Collaborative Group. Broad-spectrum antibiotics for preterm, prelabour rupture of fetal membranes: the ORACLE I randomised trial. Lancet. 2001; 357: 979–88.Google Scholar
Kenyon, S, Pike, K, Jones, DR, Brocklehurst, P, Marlow, N, Salt, A, Taylor, DJ. Childhood outcomes after prescription of antibiotics to pregnant women with spontaneous preterm labour: 7-year follow-up of the ORACLE II trial. Lancet. 2008; 372: 1319–27.Google Scholar
Raza, A, Chien, PF, Khan, KS. Multicentre randomised controlled trials in obstetrics and gynaecology: an analysis of trends over three decades. BJOG. 2009; 116: 1130–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuroki, LM, Allsworth, JE, Peipert, JF. Methodology and analytic techniques used in clinical research: associations with journal impact factor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 877–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thom, EA, Rouse, DJ, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development maternal-fetal medicine units network. What we have learned about conducting randomized controlled trials in the NICHD MFMU network. Semin Perinatol. 2003; 27: 253–60.Google Scholar
Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network Writing Group. Causes of death among stillbirths. JAMA. 2011; 306: 2459–68.Google Scholar
Farmer, DL, Thom, EA, Brock, JW, Burrows, PK, Johnson, MP, Howell, LJ, et al. The management of Myelomeningocele Study: full cohort 30-month pediatric outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manuck, TA, Watkins, WS, Esplin, MS, Biggio, J, Bukowski, R, Parry, S, et al. Pharmacogenomics of 17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate for recurrent preterm birth: a case-control study. BJOG. 2018; 125: 343–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dukes, KA, Burd, L, Elliott, AJ, Fifer, WP, Folkerth, RD, Hankins, GD et al. The safe passage study: design, methods, recruitment, and follow-up approach. Paediatr Perinatal Epidemiol. 2014; 28: 455–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA, Hodnett, ED, Saigal, S, Willan, AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000; 356: 1375–83.Google Scholar
Murphy, KE, Hannah, ME, Willan, AR, Hewson, SA, Ohlsson, A, Kelly, EN, et al. Multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids for preterm birth (MACS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008; 20: 2143–51.Google Scholar
Magee, LA, von Dadelszen, P, Rey, E, Ross, S, Asztalos, E, Kellie, E, et al. Less-tight versus tight control of hypertension in pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 407–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poston, L, Briley, AL, Seed, PT, Kelly, FJ, Shennan, AH, Vitamins in Pre-eclampsia (VIP) Trial consortium. Vitamin C and vitamin E in pregnant women at risk for pre-eclampsia (VIP trial): randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2006; 367: 1145–54.Google Scholar
Norman, JE, Mackenzie, F, Owen, P, Mactier, H, Hanretty, K, Cooper, S, et al. Progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy (STOPPIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009; 373: 2034–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shennan, AH, Crawshaw, S, Briley, A, Seed, P, Jones, G, Poston, L. A randomised controlled trial of metronidazole for the prevention of preterm birth in women positive for cervico-vaginal fetal fibronectin: the PREMET Study. BJOG. 2006; 113: 65–74.Google Scholar
Groom, KM, Shennan, AH, Jones, BA, Seed, P, Bennett, P. Randomised double blind placebo controlled trial of rofecoxib (a cox-2 specific prostaglandin inhibitor) for the prevention of preterm delivery in women at high risk. BJOG. 2005; 112: 725–30.Google Scholar
Comparative Obstetric Mobile Epidural Trial (COMET) Study Group UK. Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001: 358: 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisk, NM, Atun, R. Market failure and the poverty of new drugs in maternal health. PLoS Med. 2008; 5: e22.Google Scholar
Mol, BW, Ruifrok, AE. Global alignment, coordination and collaboration in perinatal research: the Global Obstetrics Network (GONet) Initiative. Am J Perinatol. 2013; 30: 163–6.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I, Bracken, MB, Djulbegovic, B, Garattini, S, Grant, J, Gulmezoglu, AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014; 383: 156–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuit, E, Stock, S, Rode, L, Rouse, DJ, Lim, AC, Norman, JE. Effectiveness of progestogens to improve perinatal outcome in twin pregnancies: an individual participant data meta-analysis. BJOG. 2015; 122: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Combs, CA, Schuit, E, Caritis, SN, Lim, AC, Garite, TJ, Maurel, K, et al. 17-hypdroxyprogesterone caproate in triplet pregnancy: an individual patient data meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016; 123: 682–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group. Effect of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes: meta-analysis of inividual participant data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2017; 358: j3119.Google Scholar
Van Oostwaard, MF, Langenveld, J, Schuit, E, Papatsonis, DNM, Brown, MA, Byaruhanga, RN, et al. Recurrence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: an individual patient data metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 624.Google Scholar
Schuit, E, Amer-Wahlin, I, Ojala, K, Vayssière, C, Westerhuis, MEMH, Maršál, K, et al. Effectiveness of electronic fetal monitoring with additional ST analysis in vertex singleton pregnancies at >36 weeks of gestation: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208: 187. e1–87. e13.Google Scholar
Cheong-See, F, Schuit, E, Arroyo-Manzano, D, Khalil, A, Barrett, J, Joseph, KS, et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016; 354: i4353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PROMPT: Prospective Meta-Analysis for Pessary Trials. Protocol registered in PROSPERO [cited March 2018]. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018067740.Google Scholar
Ganzevoort, W, Alfirevic, Z, von Dadelszen, P, Kenny, L, Papageorghiou, A, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, , et al. STRIDER: Sildenafil Therapy In Dismal prognosis Early-onset intrauterine growth Restriction—a protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data and aggregate data meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Syst Rev. 2014; 3: 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williamson, PR, Altman, DG, Blazeby, JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012; 13: 132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkham, JJ, Boers, M, Tugwell, P, Clarke, M, Williamson, PR. Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials. 2013; 14: 324.Google Scholar
Khan, K. The CROWN Initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women’s health. BJOG. 2014; 121: 1181–2.Google Scholar
van ‘t Hooft, J, Duffy, JM, Daly, M, Williamson, PR, Meher, S, Thom, E, et al. A core outcome set for evaluation of interventions to prevent preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 127: 49–58.Google Scholar
Al Wattar, BH, Tamilselvan, K, Khan, R, Kelso, A, Sinha, A, Pirie, AM, et al. Development of a core outcome set for epilepsy in pregnancy (E-CORE): a national multi stakeholder modified Delphi consensus study. BJOG. 2017; 124: 661–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dos Santos, F, Drymiotou, S, Antequera Martin, A, et al. Development of a core outcome set for trials on induction of labour: an international multistakeholder Delphi study. BJOG. 2018; 125: 1673–80.Google Scholar
Van ‘t Hooft, J, Alfirevic, Z, Asztalos, EV, Biggio, JR, Dugoff, , Hoffman, M, et al. CROWN initiative and preerm birth prevention: researchers and editors commit to implement core outcome sets. BJOG. 2017; 125: 8–11.Google Scholar
References
EUROCAT (2016). EUROCAT Guide 1.4. www.eurocat-network.eu/aboutus/datacollection/guidelinesforregistration/guide1_4Google Scholar
Newton, J, Garner, S. Disease Registers in England. Oxford: Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford, 2002. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.1990&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle Scholar
Rankin, J, Best, K. Disease registers in England. Paed Child Health. 2012; 24: 337–42.Google Scholar
Boyd, P, Barisic, I, Haeusler, M, et al. Paper 1: The EUROCAT network: organization and processes. Birth Def Res (Part A). 2011; 91: 2–15.Google Scholar
Kinsner-Ovaskainen, A, Lanzoni, M, Garne, E, Loane, M, Morris, J, Neville, A, et al. A sustainable solution for the activities of the European Network for Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies: EUROCAT as part of the EU Platform on Rare Diseases Registration. Eur J Med Genet. 2018; 61: 513–17.Google Scholar
Lanzoni, M, Morris, J, Garne, E, et al. European Monitoring of Congenital Anomalies: JRC-EUROCAT Report on Statistical Monitoring of Congenital Anomalies (2006–2015). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017.Google Scholar
EUROCAT (2018). Publications. www.eurocat-network.eu/aboutus/publications/publicationsGoogle Scholar
Misra, T, Dattani, N, Majeed, A. Evaluation of the national congenital anomaly system in England and Wales. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonat Ed. 2005; 90: F368–73.Google Scholar
Knox, EG, Armstrong, EH, Lancashire, R. The quality of notification of congenital malformations. J Epid Comm Health. 1984; 38: 296–305.Google Scholar
Boyd, PA, Armstrong, B, Dolk, H, et al. Congenital anomaly surveillance in England – ascertainment deficiencies in the national system. BMJ. 2005; 330: 27–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Springett, A, Budd, J, Draper, ES, et al. Congenital Anomaly Statistics 2012: England and Wales. London: British Isles Network of Congenital Anomaly Registers, 2014.Google Scholar
Morris, JK, Springett, A. The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register for England and Wales 2013 Annual Report. London: Queen Mary University of London, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, 2014.Google Scholar
The Royal College of Surgeons (2017). CRANE Database Annual Report of Cleft Lip and/or Palate 2017. www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/.../2017/crane-annual-report-2017-v11.pdfGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (2013). The UK Strategy for Rare Diseases. www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/.../2017/crane-annual-report-2017-v11.pdfGoogle Scholar
Public Health England (2017). National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service: Congenital Anomaly Statistics 2015. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716574/Congenital_anomaly_statistics_2015_v2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S, Miller, N, Rashbass, J. Development and progress with the National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonat Ed. 2018; 103: 215–18.Google Scholar
Rankin, J, Pattenden, S, Abramsky, L, et al. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in five British regions, 1991-99. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonat Ed. 2005; 90: 374–9.Google Scholar
Morris, JK, Springett, AL, Greenlees, R, et al. Trends in congenital anomalies in Europe from 1980 to 2012. PLOS One. 2018; 13: e0194986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolk, H, Loane, M, Garne, E, et al. Congenital heart defects in Europe: prevalence and perinatal mortality, 2000 to 2005. Circulation. 2011; 123: 841–9.Google Scholar
Rankin, J, Dillon, E, Wright, C. Congenital anterior abdominal wall defects in the North of England, 1986–1996: Occurrence and outcome. Prenat Diag. 1999; 19: 662–8.Google Scholar
Fillingham, A, Rankin, J. Prevalence, prenatal diagnosis and survival of gastroschisis. Prenat Diag. 2008; 28: 1232–7.Google Scholar
EUROCAT (2012). Special Report: Congenital anomalies are a major group of mainly rare diseases. www.eurocat-network.eu/content/Special-Report-Major-Group-of-Mainly-Rare-Diseases.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wellesley, D, Dolk, H, Boyd, PA, et al. Rare chromosome abnormalities, prevalence and prenatal diagnosis rates from population-based congenital anomaly registers in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012; 20: 521–6.Google Scholar
Barisic, I, Boban, L, Greenlees, R, et al. Holt Oram syndrome: a registry-based study in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014; 9: 156.Google Scholar
Barisic, I, Boban, L, Loane, M, et al. Meckel-Gruber syndrome: a population-based study on prevalence, prenatal diagnosis, clinical features, and survival in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015; 23: 746–52.Google Scholar
Barisic, I, Odak, L, Loane, M, et al. Prevalence, prenatal diagnosis and clinical features of oculo-auriculo-vertebral spectrum: a registry-based study in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014; 22: 1026–33.Google Scholar
Barisic, I, Odak, L, Loane, M, et al. Fraser syndrome: epidemiological study in a European population. Am J Med Genet. 2013; 161A: 1012–18.Google Scholar
Boyd, PA, Tonks, A, Rankin, J, et al. Monitoring the prenatal detection of structural fetal congenital anomalies in England and Wales: register-based study. J Med Screen. 2011; 18: 2–7.Google Scholar
Tonks, A, Miller, N, Broughan, J, et al. Do detection rates for auditable conditions meet the NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme (FASP) targets? Using data from the National Congenital and Rare Disease Registration Service (NCARDRS). BJOG. 2018; 125: 24.Google Scholar
Tennant, PWG, Pearce, MS, Bythell, M, et al. 20-year survival of children born with congenital anomalies: a population-based study. Lancet. 2010; 375; 649–56.Google Scholar
Rankin, J, Tennant, PWG, Bythell, M, et al. Predictors of survival in children born with Down syndrome: a registry based study. Pediatrics. 2012; 129: e1373–81.Google Scholar
References
National Newborn Screening and Global Resource Center (2014). Newborn Screening Reports and Publications. https://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/newborn_reportsGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations on Antenatal Care for a Positive Pregnancy Experience. Geneva: WHO, 2016.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality: Country, Regional and Global Estimates. Geneva: WHO, 2006.Google Scholar
Pan American Health Organization. Social Protection in Health Schemes for Mother, Newborn and Child Populations: Lessons Learned from the Latin American Region. Washington, DC: PAHO/WHO, 2008.Google Scholar
Christianson, A, Modell, B. Medical genetics in developing countries. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2004; 5: 219–65.Google Scholar
Ventura, W, Ventura-Laveriano, J, Nazario-Redondo, C. Perinatal outcomes associated with subsequent pregnancy among adolescent mothers in Peru. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012; 117: 56–60.Google Scholar
Ventura, W, Nazario-Redondo, C, Sekizawa, A. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis from the perspective of a low-resource country. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013; 122: 270–3.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Human Genetics: Services for the Prevention and Management of Genetic Disorders and Birth Defects in Developing Countries. WHO/WOAPBD Meeting 1999. Geneva: WHO, 1999.Google Scholar
Seffah, JD, Adanu, RM. Obstetric ultrasonography in low-income countries. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 52: 250–5.Google Scholar
Wong, AE, Kuppermann, M, Creasman, JM, Sepulveda, W, Vargas, JE. Patient and provider attitudes toward screening for Down syndrome in a Latin American country where abortion is illegal. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 115: 235–9.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, A, Newson, A, Luna, F, Ashcroft, R. Prenatal diagnosis and abortion for congenital abnormalities: is it ethical to provide one without the other? Am J Bioeth. 2009; 9: 48–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boland, R, Katzive, L. Developments in laws on induced abortion: 1998-2007. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008; 34: 110–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baud, D, Gubler, DJ, Schaub, B, Lanteri, MC, Musso, D. An update on Zika virus infection. Lancet. 2017; 390: 2099–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bardina, SV, Bunduc, P, Tripathi, S, Duehr, J, Frere, JJ, Brown, JA, et al. Enhancement of Zika virus pathogenesis by preexisting antiflavivirus immunity. Science. 2017; 356: 175–80.Google Scholar
BBC (2016). Zika virus triggers pregnancy delay calls. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35388842Google Scholar
Sedgh, G, Singh, S, Hussain, R. Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Stud Fam Plann. 2014; 45: 301–14.Google Scholar
Oduyebo, T, Polen, KD, Walke, HT, Reagan-Steiner, S, Lathrop, E, Rabe, IB, et al. Update: Interim Guidance for Health Care Providers Caring for Pregnant Women with Possible Zika Virus Exposure – United States (Including U.S. Territories), July 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017; 66: 781–93.Google Scholar
Oladapo, OT, Souza, JP, De Mucio, B, de Leon, RG, Perea, W, Gulmezoglu, AM, et al. WHO interim guidance on pregnancy management in the context of Zika virus infection. Lancet Glob Health. 2016; 4: e510–11.Google Scholar
Jouannic, JM, Friszer, S, Leparc-Goffart, I, Garel, C, Eyrolle-Guignot, D. Zika virus infection in French Polynesia. Lancet. 2016; 387: 1051–2.Google Scholar
Pomar, L, Malinger, G, Benoist, G, Carles, G, Ville, Y, Rousset, D, et al. Association between Zika virus and fetopathy: a prospective cohort study in French Guiana. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49: 729–36.Google Scholar
Baud, D, Van Mieghem, T, Musso, D, Truttmann, AC, Panchaud, A, Vouga, M. Clinical management of pregnant women exposed to Zika virus. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016; 16: 523.Google Scholar
Calvet, G, Aguiar, RS, Melo, ASO, Sampaio, SA, de Filippis, I, Fabri, A, et al. Detection and sequencing of Zika virus from amniotic fluid of fetuses with microcephaly in Brazil: a case study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016; 16: 653–60.Google Scholar
Papageorghiou, AT, Thilaganathan, B, Bilardo, CM, Ngu, A, Malinger, G, Herrera, M. ISUOG Interim Guidance on ultrasound for Zika virus infection in pregnancy: information for healthcare professionals. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 530–2.Google Scholar
Vouga, M, Baud, D. Imaging of congenital Zika virus infection: the route to identification of prognostic factors. Prenat Diagn. 2016; 36: 799–811.Google Scholar
Oduyebo, T, Petersen, EE, Rasmussen, SA, et al. Update: interim guidelines for health care providers caring for pregnant women and women of reproductive age with possible Zika virus exposure – United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016; 65: 122–7.Google Scholar
Vouga, M, Musso, D, Van Mieghem, T, Baud, D. CDC guidelines for pregnant women during the Zika virus outbreak. Lancet. 2016; 387: 843–4.Google Scholar
Schaub, B, Vouga, M, Najioullah, F, Gueneret, M, Monthieux, A, Harte, C, et al. Analysis of blood from Zika virus-infected fetuses: a prospective case series. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017; 17: 520–7.Google Scholar
Panchaud, A, Stojanov, M, Ammerdorffer, A, Vouga, M, Baud, D. Emerging role of Zika virus in adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016; 29: 659–94.Google Scholar
Lambert, V, Pomar, L, Malinger, G. The Zika virus epidemic in French Guiana: proposition of an ultrasound based score for the diagnosis of fetal congenital Zika virus syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50(Suppl. 1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Leruez-Ville, M, Stirnemann, J, Sellier, Y, Guilleminot, T, Dejean, A, Magny, JF, et al. Feasibility of predicting the outcome of fetal infection with cytomegalovirus at the time of prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215: 342. e1–9.Google Scholar
Sanz Cortes, M, Rivera, AM, Yepez, M, Guimaraes, CV, Diaz Yunes, I, Zarutskie, A, et al. Clinical assessment and brain findings in a cohort of mothers, fetuses and infants infected with ZIKA virus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 440. e1–36.Google Scholar
Oliveira Melo, AS, Malinger, G, Ximenes, R, Szejnfeld, PO, Alves Sampaio, S, Bispo de Filippis, AM. Zika virus intrauterine infection causes fetal brain abnormality and microcephaly: tip of the iceberg? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 6–7.Google Scholar
Pomar, L, Vouga, M, Lambert, V, Pomar, C, Hcini, N, Jolivet, A, et al. Maternal-fetal transmission and adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant women infected with Zika virus: prospective cohort study in French Guiana. BMJ. 2018; 363: k4431.Google Scholar
Brasil, P, Pereira, JP Jr., Moreira, ME, Ribeiro Nogueira, RM, Damasceno, L, Wakimoto, M, et al. Zika virus infection in pregnant women in Rio de Janeiro. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 2321–34.Google Scholar
Shapiro-Mendoza, CK, Rice, ME, Galang, RR, Fulton, AC, VanMaldeghem, K, Prado, MV, et al. Pregnancy Outcomes After Maternal Zika Virus Infection During Pregnancy – U.S. Territories, January 1, 2016-April 25, 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017; 66: 615–21.Google Scholar
Hoen, B, Schaub, B, Funk, AL, Ardillon, V, Boullard, M, Cabie, A, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after ZIKV infection in French territories in the Americas. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 985–94.Google Scholar
Panchaud, A, Vouga, M, Musso, D, Baud, D. An international registry for women exposed to Zika virus during pregnancy: time for answers. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016; 16: 995–6.Google Scholar
Pomar, L, Musso, D, Malinger, G, Vouga, M, Panchaud, A, Baud, D. Zika virus during pregnancy: From maternal exposure to congenital Zika virus syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2019; 39: 420–430.Google Scholar