Our results contrast with what is, to our knowledge, the only previous systematic review that examined the question of untreated depression because we found significant risks of 2 key perinatal outcomes, preterm birth and low birth weight. These are important results for pregnant women and clinicians to take into account in the decision-making process around depression treatment.

Background Aetiological data for neonatal infections are essential to inform policies and programme strategies, but such data are scarce from sub-Saharan Africa. We therefore completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available data from the African continent since 1980, with a focus on regional differences in aetiology and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the past decade (2008-18). Methods We included data for microbiologically confirmed invasive bacterial infection including meningitis and AMR among neonates in sub-Saharan Africa and assessed the quality of scientific reporting according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for Newborn Infection (STROBE-NI) checklist. We calculated pooled proportions for reported bacterial isolates and AMR. Findings We included 151 studies comprising data from 84 534 neonates from 26 countries, almost all of which were hospital-based. Of the 82 studies published between 2008 and 2018, insufficient details were reported regarding most STROBE-NI items. Regarding culture positive bacteraemia or sepsis, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella spp, and Escherichia coli accounted for 25% (95% CI 21-29), 21% (16-27), and 10% (8-10) respectively. For meningitis, the predominant identified causes were group B streptococcus 25% (16-33), Streptococcus pneumoniae 17% (9-6), and S aureus 12% (3-25). Resistance to WHO recommended β-lactams was reported in 614 (68%) of 904 cases and resistance to aminoglycosides in 317 (27%) of 1176 cases. Interpretation Hospital-acquired neonatal infections and AMR are a major burden in Africa. More population-based neonatal infection studies and improved routine surveillance are needed to improve clinical care, plan health systems approaches, and address AMR. Future studies should be reported according to standardised reporting guidelines, such as STROBE-NI, to aid comparability and reduce research waste.

No abstract

Background Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus and subsequent COVID‐19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID‐19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS‐CoV‐2. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID‐19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes. We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty‐two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty‐nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two‐month follow‐up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available. This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID‐19, severe and critical COVID‐19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO‐approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO‐approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all‐cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high‐certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID‐19 High‐certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA‐1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP‐CorV (Sinopharm‐Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVI...