A comparison of neonatal outcomes between adolescent and adult mothers in developed countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence suggests that adolescent pregnancies are at increased risk of adverse neonatal outcomes compared to adult pregnancies; however, there are significant inconsistencies in the literature, particularly in studies conducted in developed countries. The objective of this study therefore is to systematically review the current literature with regard to the relationship between adolescent pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. A literature search was conducted in eight electronic databases (AMED, ASSIA, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Health Source: Nursing, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE and Scopus. The reference lists of included studies were also hand searched. Studies were included if: they were conducted in countries with very high human development according to the United Nations Human Development Index; reported at least one comparison between adolescents (19 years or under) and adult mothers (20–34 years); and were published between January 1998 and March 2018. Studies were screened for inclusion and data extracted by one reviewer. A second reviewer independently reviewed a sub-set of studies. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 using crude counts reported in the included studies. Sub-group analyses of adolescents aged 17 and under and 18–19 were conducted. Pooled analysis of adjusted odds ratios was also undertaken in order to consider the effect of confounding factors. Meta-analysis effect estimates are reported as risk ratios (RR) and pooled association as adjusted odds ratios (aORs). Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals are presented. After removal of duplicates a total of 1791 articles were identified, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis showed adolescents to have increased risk of all primary adverse outcomes investigated. Sub-group analysis suggests an increased risk of perinatal death and low birthweight for children born to adolescent mothers; 17 and under (perinatal death: RR 1.50, CI 1.32–1.71: low birthweight RR 1.43, CI 1.20–1.70); 18–19 (perinatal death RR 1.21, CI 1.06–1.37: low birthweight RR 1.10, CI 1.08–1.57). Mothers aged 17 and under were also at increased risk of preterm delivery (RR 1.64, CI 1.54–1.75). Analysis adjusted for confounders showed increased risk of preterm delivery (aOR 1.23, CI 1.09–1.38), very preterm delivery (aOR 1.22, CI 1.03–1.44) and neonatal death (aOR 1.31, CI 1.14–1.52). Findings show that young maternal age is a significant risk factor for adverse neonatal outcomes in developed countries. Adolescent maternal age therefore should be considered as a potential cause for concern in relation to neonatal health and it is recommended that health care professionals respond accordingly with increased support and monitoring

Weight management during teenage pregnancy: Issues to consider when developing appropriate support

Teenage pregnancy is more prevalent in areas of high obesity, compared to areas where obesity levels are low. Risks associated with maternal obesity in pregnant teenagers include pre-eclampsia and caesarean delivery. To reduce these risks, pregnant teenagers need to be supported to gain a healthy weight in pregnancy. This includes encouraging these women to eat healthily through providing appropriate information including online or smartphone apps in conjunction with face-to-face support. These young women also need encouragement to be physically active. This support must be tailored to the teenage population considering their specific barriers and facilitators to behaviour change. Midwives with the aid of a multidisciplinary team play a key role in encouraging these healthy behaviours

Nutrient intakes and nutritional biomarkers in pregnant adolescents: a systematic review of studies in developed countries

Background: Babies born to adolescent mothers have been shown to have poorer outcomes compared to those born to adults. Nutritional status may have an important role to play in improving the health of pregnant adolescents; however there is a lack of evidence regarding the adequacy of adolescent diets during pregnancy. This systematic review aims to examine what is known about the nutritional status of adolescent pregnant women. Methods: A systematic search of the literature identified 21 studies which met the inclusion criteria for the review. Primary research papers using any methods were included where they were published in English between January 1995 and May 2015 and included measurements of nutrient intakes or biological markers of nutritional status in pregnant women aged 11-19 years. Individual study data was first summarised narratively before study means were pooled to give an estimate of nutritional status in the population. Results: The results show that individual studies reported intakes of energy, fibre and a number of key micronutrients which were below recommended levels. Biological markers of iron and selenium status also showed cause for concern. Pooled analysis of individual means as a percentage of UK Dietary Reference Intakes showed intakes of vitamin D (34.8 % CI 0-83.1) to be significantly below recommendations (p=0.05). Serum selenium levels were also found to be low (61.8 μg/L, CI 39-84). Conclusions: This review has identified a number of areas where the nutritional status of pregnant adolescents is sub-optimal, which may have implications for the health of adolescent mothers and their babies. It was not however possible to examine the impact of supplement use or socio-demographic characteristics which limits the interpretation these results. Further work is needed to establish the characteristics of those most at risk within this population, how this differs from adult pregnant women and the role of supplementation in achieving adequate nutrition

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical science. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical science. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press