Background Previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have been associated with unfavourable pregnancy outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the human coronavirus family, and since this infection shows a pandemic trend it will involve many pregnant women. Aims This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Sources PubMed, EMBASE, MedRxiv, Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 8th May 2020. Articles focusing on pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 were eligible. Participants were pregnant women with COVID-19. Content The meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA and MOOSE reporting guidelines. Bias risk was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42042020184752). Twenty-four articles, including 1100 pregnancies, were selected. The pooled prevalence of pneumonia was 89% (95%CI 70–100), while the prevalence of women admitted to the intensive care unit was 8% (95%CI 1–20). Three stillbirths and five maternal deaths were reported. A pooled prevalence of 85% (95%CI 72–94) was observed for caesarean deliveries. There were three neonatal deaths. The prevalence of COVID-19-related admission to the neonatal intensive care unit was 2% (95%CI 0–6). Nineteen out of 444 neonates had a positive nasopharyngeal swab; one out of five neonates had elevated concentrations of serum IgM and IgG, but a negative swab. Implications Although adverse outcomes such as ICU admission or patient death can occur, the clinical course of COVID-19 in most women is not severe, and the infection does not significantly influence the pregnancy. A high caesarean delivery rate is reported, but there is no clinical evidence supporting this mode of delivery. Indeed, in most cases the disease does not threaten the mother, and vertical transmission has not been clearly demonstrated. Therefore, COVID-19 should not be considered as an indication for elective caesarean section.

No abstract

Despite being quite frequent and having serious implications in terms of symptomatology and fertility, data on incidence and prevalence of endometriosis and adenomyosis following gold standard definitions are dramatically lacking. The average time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis in industrialized countries still ranges from five to ten years. Using the regional centralized data linkage system, we calculated incidence and prevalence of endometriosis and adenomyosis in the female population of Friuli Venezia Giulia region, Italy, for the years 2011–2013. Cases were defined as new diagnoses from hospital discharge records, following procedures allowing direct visualization for endometriosis and hysterectomy for adenomyosis, with or without histological confirmation. Diagnoses were considered “new” after verifying women had not been diagnosed in the previous ten years. Incidence of endometriosis and adenomyosis in women aged 15–50 years is 0.14%. Prevalence, estimated from incidence, is 2.00%. Adenomyosis, representing 28% of all diagnoses, becomes increasingly prevalent after the age of 50 years. Our results shows how the study of both endometriosis and adenomyosis should not be limited to women of premenopausal age. Further efforts are needed to sensitize women and health professional, and to find new data linkage possibilities to identify undiagnosed cases.