Muliadi Limanjaya

33771251

1. See the baseline characteristics from a study by Papagenorghiou et.al., what can you
report from the subject’s medical history and smoking status?

In the subject's medical history, there are some discrepancies found between the
preeclampsia group and the no preeclampsia group. The prevalence rate of diabetes is
higher in the preeclampsia group. There is almost a three-times difference in the
proportion of the Covid-19 positive group and Covid-19 negative groups. The result is
consistent in the no preeclampsia group; where Covid-19 positive group comprised 4.2%
of subjects with diabetes compared to 1.3% in the Covid-19 negative group.

The thyroid and other endocrine diseases prevalence are higher in the no preeclampsia
group with a higher proportion of 11.4% in subjects with the Covid-19 group compared to
9.2% in subjects without the Covid-19 group. In the preeclampsia group, the proportion is
higher in the subject without the Covid-19 group, as in 4.7% compared to 3.4%.

In the preeclampsia group, 8.5% of the subject in the Covid-19 group has a history of
cardiac disease compared to 1.6% in the subject without the Covid-19 group. There is no
difference in the no preeclampsia group as the percentage is 1.2% whether the subject is
diagnosed with Covid-19 or not.

The preeclampsia group has a bigger proportion of the subject with a hypertension
history, particularly higher in the Covid-19 positive group with 22.0% compared to 15.6%
in the Covid-19 negative group. The proportion is significantly lower in the no
preeclampsia group, where only 2.0% of the Covid-19 positive group and 1.5% of the
Covid-19 negative group have a history of hypertension before.

The chronic respiratory disease proportion is higher in those without Covid-19 at 6.5%
compared to 3.7% in the subject with the Covid-19 group. The contrary happened in the
no preeclampsia group, where the subject with Covid-19 had a higher history of chronic
respiratory disease.

The proportion of past medical history of kidney disease is linear in both preeclampsia
and no preeclampsia group, where it is higher in the Covid-19 negative group; 4.7%
compared to 1.7% in the preeclampsia group, and 0.9% compared to 0.6% in the no
preeclampsia group.

Past malaria proportion can't be compared in the preeclampsia group, as there is no

Covid-19 negative patient who has a history of Malaria. In the no preeclampsia group,
there is 1.2% of the subject in the Covid-19 positive group compared to 1.5% of subjects
in the Covid-19 negative group.

No subject has a history of tuberculosis in the preeclampsia group, compared to a little

number of subject in the no preeclampsia group, where there is 0.5% has a history of
tuberculosis in subject with Covid-19 group, and only 0.2% has a history of tuberculosis
in the subject without Covid-19 group.
When we try to combine 2 or more of the prior medical condition, the preeclampsia group
shows 10.2% proportion of the population has a history of 2 or more than two of the
conditions stated compared to 3.1% in the Covid-19 negative group. The proportion is
smaller in the no preeclampsia group, where it is only 2.7% compared to 1.7% in the
subject with the Covid-19 group and without the Covid-19 group respectively.

The proportion of a smoker during the index pregnancy is lower in the subject in the
Covid-19 group compared to subjects without the Covid-19 group. The result is also
consistent even after the diagnosis of preeclampsia is added, with the proportion of
smoker number being lower in the subject with the Covid-19 group compared to the
subject without the Covid-19 group.

2. Do you see a specific pattern from their baseline characteristics that make the
subjects with Covid-19 are different from the ones without Covid-19 in Papagenorghiou
et al?

From the baseline characteristics table, the first characteristic that differentiates the
subject with Covid-19 from the subject without Covid-19 is the maternal weight. The
subjects in the Covid-19 positive group have a heavier weight on average, whether the
diagnosis of preeclampsia was later made or not. The maternal weight also correlates
with the body mass index, which the average value is also higher in the subject with
Covid-19 compared to the subject without Covid-19.

Based on the maternal medical history, the subjects with Covid-19 also have a higher
proportion in most of the diseases recorded before the study. The higher prevalence of
past illnesses is even clearer after the preeclampsia diagnosis was added. The
proportion number is considerably higher in the preeclampsia group compared to the no
preeclampsia group.

3. Look at table 1. from Fahmida et.al, what can you report from the subject's living
condition?

The type of family observed in the study is significantly different in the intervention group
and control group. The intervention group was made up of 147 or 61.3% nuclear family
of the total sample compared to 178 or 74.2% in the control group. After the earthquake,
181 families, or 75.4% of the sample in the intervention group stay in the refugee camp,
and only 11 families or 4.6% still stayed in the refugee camp at the research baseline.
There is no significant statistical difference with the control group as there are 192
families or 80.0% stayed in the refugee camp after the earthquake and 12 families or
5.0% still stayed at the baseline of the research. The number of broken-down houses is
significantly higher in the control group where 140 or 58.3% of the family's houses
broken down compared to only 86 or 35.2% in the intervention group. There are no
significant differences in the unusability of public facility around, the number of fatalities
and injuries among family members, traumatic feelings, and difficulty in accessing food
and basic needs between both the intervention and control groups. There is more
difficulty for the control group to access health services, education, and place of worship
with 44 or 18.3% of the families finding it difficult compared to only 11 families or 4.6% in
the intervention group. There is no significant difference in the number of mothers who
breastfeed their children in the camp, which consists of 70 mothers in the intervention
group and 66 mothers in the control group. There are only 2 mothers that stop
breastfeeding their children in the intervention group compared to 4 mothers in the
control group. There is no significant difference in toilet facilities for both groups while the
source of drinking water differs significantly between the intervention and control groups.
The main source of drinking water for the intervention group is piped water for 75
families and a well for 151 families, while the control group depends mostly on a well for
115 families, and spring water for 74 families.

4. Do you see a different pattern between the intervention and the control group in the
study of Fahmida et.al? Explain your answer.

In the sociodemographic characteristic of the sample in the study of Fahmida et al, there
are significant differences found in the type of family; mother's education; the number of
houses broken down after the earthquake; difficulties in accessing health services,
education, and place of worship; and source of drinking water. Other than those, the
other characteristic was distributed without any significant differences in the intervention
and the control group.

Since the design of the study is a Randomized Controlled Trial, there is a process of
assigning the sample randomly to reduce bias and other confounding factors that could
influence the outcome outside the intervention given. This also resulted in a more equally
distributed sample in both the intervention and control groups.