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
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Dec 18;21(1):498.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-03186-x.

Self-collection of samples for group B streptococcus testing during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sarah A Borg  1 , Jenny Cao  2 , Phi-Yen Nguyen  2 , Samia Aziz  2 , Joshua P Vogel  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Self-collection of samples for group B streptococcus testing during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sarah A Borg et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: Sample self-collection for reproductive tract infection diagnosis has been found to offer greater convenience, privacy, autonomy, and expanded access to testing in non-pregnant adults. This review aimed to determine whether sample self-collection is as accurate as provider-collection for detection of group B streptococcus colonisation in pregnancy and whether a strategy of self-collection compared to provider-collection might improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes.

Methods: We searched CINAHL Plus, Medline, EMBASE, Maternity and Infant Care Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2022. Eligible studies compared self-collected and provider-collected samples taken from the same participants or participants randomised to either self-collection or provider-collection for reproductive tract infection testing using the same test and testing method in pregnant individuals. We included trials and observational studies. Reviewers assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist and independently extracted data. Sensitivity and specificity for group B streptococcus colonisation of self-collected compared to provider-collected samples were pooled using a bivariate, random-effects, meta-analytic model. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023396573).

Results: The search identified 5909 references, of which eleven diagnostic accuracy group B streptococcus studies were included (n = 3269 participants). No studies assessed the effects of self-collection in pregnancy on health outcomes. All studies had high or unclear risk of bias. Pooled sensitivities of self-collected samples for group B streptococcus detection were 82% (95% CI: 66-91%; I2 = 68.85%) in four trials (n = 1226) and 91% (95% CI: 83-96%; I2 = 37.38%) in seven non-randomised studies (n = 2043). Pooled specificities were 99% (95% CI: 98-99%; I2 = 12.08%) and 97% (95% CI: 94-99%; I2 = 72.50%), respectively.

Conclusions: Self-collected samples for group B streptococcus detection in pregnancy had high specificity compared to provider-collection, but lower sensitivity, particularly for included trials. Studies investigating the effect of self-collection on health outcomes, and further higher quality trials comparing accuracy of self-collection to provider-collection, are required.

Keywords: Antenatal; Diagnostic accuracy; GBS; Group B strep; Group B streptococcal infection; Group B streptococcus; Pregnancy; Self-care; Self-care intervention; Self-sampling.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart [30] of identification and selection of studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
HSROC plots of randomised (left) and non-randomised (right) GBS studies that compared self-collection to provider-collection: The circles represent individual study estimates, with circle size proportional to sample size of each study. The continuous green line is the summary curve from the model. The red square represents the summary estimate for sensitivity and specificity and the yellow dotted line represents the 95% confidence region for this summary estimate. The green dotted line represents the 95% prediction region
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plots of randomised (top) and non-randomised (bottom) studies that compare self-collected samples to provider-collected samples for GBS testing
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Seale AC, Bianchi-Jassir F, Russell NJ, et al. Estimates of the burden of group B streptococcal disease worldwide for pregnant women, stillbirths, and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(suppl_2):S200–s19. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix664. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. ACOG Prevention of group B streptococcal early-onset disease in newborns: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 797. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(2):e51–e72. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003668. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Russell NJ, Seale AC, O’Driscoll M, et al. Maternal colonization with group B streptococcus and serotype distribution worldwide: systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(suppl_2):S100–11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization . WHO recommendations for prevention and treatment of maternal peripartum infections. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. - PubMed
    1. Hasperhoven GF, Al-Nasiry S, Bekker V, Villamor E, Kramer B. Universal screening versus risk-based protocols for antibiotic prophylaxis during childbirth to prevent early-onset group B streptococcal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2020;127(6):680–691. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16085. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources