Toxoplasma Gondii Infection Among Pregnant Females in Lahore

4598 words (18 pages) Essay

13th Mar 2018 Health Reference this

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a university student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

The present study was conducted on 190 pregnant females attending Government, Lahore General Hospital and from a private setup named as Fatima Memorial Hospital coming for their antenatal checkups during first trimester. The detailed results are shown in the appendices. The summary of results is given in Tables 1- 20 and Figures 1- 6.

Figure 1 shows the frequency of IgG in pregnant females. Out of 190, IgG antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii were present in 60 (31.58%) females.

Figure 2 shows the frequency of IgM in pregnant females. Out of 190 pregnant females,

IgM antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii were present only in 9 (4.73%) females.

Table 1 shows the comparison of age, gestational age and gravida between IgG positive and negative females. The mean age of IgG positive group was 28.19 ± 4.70 and the mean number of gravida and gestational age of IgG positive group was 3.26 ± 1.84 and 9.28 ± 3.14 respectively. Whereas the mean age of IgG negative group was 25.92 ± 5.00 and the mean number of gravida and gestational age of IgG negative group was 2.63 ± 1.85 and 9.36 ± 3.20 respectively. There was no statistically significant differences in mean gestational age between IgG positive and negative groups (p-value = 0.753). The mean age of IgG positive group was statistically significant and higher as compared to IgG negative group (p-value = 0.005) similarly the mean gravida of IgG positive group was statistically significant and higher as compared to IgG negative group (p-value = 0.012).

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Find out more

Table 2 shows the comparison of age, gestational age and gravida between IgM positive and negative groups. The mean age IgM positive group was 29.44 ± 5.20 and the mean number of gravida and gestational age of IgM positive group was 2.56 ± 1.51 and 9.33 ± 3.74 respectively. Whereas the mean age of IgM negative group was 26.49 ± 4.97 and the mean number of gravida and gestational age of IgM negative group was 2.84 ±1.88 and 9.33 ± 3.16 respectively. The mean age of IgM positive group was generally higher as compared to IgM negative group and the mean gravida of IgM positive group was generally lower as compared to IgM negative group but these differences were not statistically significant (p-value = 0.074 and p-value = 0.806 respectively). Similarly there were no statistically significant differences in mean gestational age between IgM positive and negative groups (p-value = 0.792).

Table 3 shows the IgG positivity in pregnant women according to family income and there was statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and family income (p-value <0.001).

Table 4 shows the IgM positivity in pregnant women according to family income. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and family income ( p-value 0.058).

Table 5 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women with history of abortion. There was statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and history of abortion. The IgG antibodies were present in 20 (33.3%) females who had history of abortion whereas it was positive in 40 (66.70%) females who had no history of abortion (p-value 0.01).

Table 6 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women with history of abortion. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and history of abortion (p-value 0.967). The IgM antibodies were present in 2 (22.2%) females who had history of abortion whereas it was absent in 39 (21.6%) females who had history of abortion.

Figure 3 shows the association of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to complications in previous pregnancies. There was no statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and previous pregnancy complications ( p-value 0.265). The IgG antibodies were present in 4 (7.0%) females who had complication in previous pregnancy whereas it was absent in 4 (3.3%) females who had complication in previous pregnancy.

Figure 4 shows the association of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to complications in previous pregnancies. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and previous pregnancy complication (p-value 0.342). The IgM antibodies was present in 1 (11.1%) females who had complication in previous pregnancy whereas it was absent in 7 (4.1%) females who had complication in previous pregnancy.

Table 7 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of contact with cat. There was statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and contact with cat (p-value <0.01). The IgG antibodies were present in 31 (50.9%) females who had cat in house whereas it was absent in 26 (20.3%) females who had cat in house.

Table 8 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of contact with cat. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and contact with cat (p-value 0.455). The IgM antibodies were present in 4 (44.4%) females who had cat in house whereas it was absent in 53 (29.2%) females who had cat in house.

Figure 5 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of cleaning cats litter. There was no statistically significant association between IgG antibodies in women who had an experience to clean the cats litter (p-value 0.505). The IgG antibodies were present in 11 (17.5%) females who had an experience to clean the cats litter whereas it was absent in 18 (13.8%) females who had an experience to clean the cats litter.

Figure 6 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of cleaning cats litter. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and females who had an experience to clean the cats litter (p-value >0.999). The IgM antibodies were present in 1 (11.1%) females who had an experience to clean the cats litter whereas it was absent in 28 (15.2%) females who had an experience to clean the cats litter.

Table 9 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of working or exposure to soil. There was no statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and working with soil (p-value 0.076). The IgG antibodies were present in 20 (33.3%) females who worked with soil whereas IgG antibodies was absent in 27 (21.1%) females who worked with soil.

Table 10 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of working or exposure to soil. There was statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and working with soil (p-value 0.008). The IgM antibodies were present in 6 (66.7%) females who worked with soil whereas IgM antibodies were absent in 39 (22.8%) females who worked with soil. Therefore, working with soil can be a risk factor for pregnant women.

Table 11 shows the association of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of eating raw/uncooked meat. There was statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and eating raw/uncooked meat (p-value <0.001). The IgG antibodies were present in 36 (59.6%) females who ate raw/uncooked meat whereas it was absent in 38 (29.3%) females who ate raw/uncooked meat.

Table 12 shows the association of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of eating raw/uncooked meat. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and eating raw/uncooked meat (p-value 0.092). The IgM antibodies were present in 6 (66.7%) females who ate raw/uncooked meat whereas it was absent in 64 (37.4%) females who ate raw/uncooked meat.

Table 13 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women with history of eating unwashed fruits and vegetables. IgG antibodies were significantly associated with eating raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits (p-value <0.001). The IgG antibodies were present in 50 (82.5%) females who ate raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits whereas it was absent in 67 (51.2%) females who ate raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits.

Table 14 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women with history of eating unwashed fruits and vegetables. IgM antibodies were not significantly associated with eating raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits (p-value 0.157). The IgM antibodies were present in 8 (88.9%) females who ate raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits whereas it was absent in 102 (59.6%) females who ate raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits. Generally percentage of positive antibodies was higher so eating raw vegetables and unwashed fruits can be a risk factor for pregnant women.

Table 15 shows the association of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to source of drinking water. IgG antibodies were significantly associated with source of drinking water (p-value <0.001).

Table 16 shows the association of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to source of drinking water. IgM antibodies were not significantly associated with source of drinking water (p-value 0.072).

Table 17 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to washing of hands before eating. There was no significant association between IgG antibodies and washing of hands before eating (p-value >0.999).

Table 18 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to washing of hands before eating. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and washing of hands before eating (p-value >0.999). The IgM antibodies were present in 9 (100.0%) females who washed their hands before eating meals and IgM antibodies were absent in 178 (98.2%) females who washed their hands before eating meals.

Table 19 shows the association of IgG positivity in pregnant women with use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards. There was no statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and use of clean kitchen utensils before every use (p-value 0.523). The IgG antibodies were present in 55 (91.2%) females who washed kitchen utensils before every use and IgG antibodies were also absent in 123 (94.3%) females who washed kitchen utensils before every use.

Table 20 shows the association of IgM positivity in pregnant women with use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and use of clean kitchen utensils before every use (p-value 0.113). The IgM antibodies were present in 7 (77.7%) females who washed kitchen utensils before every use and IgM antibodies were absent in 161 (94.2%) females who washed kitchen utensils before every use.

Figure 1: Showing frequency of IgG in pregnant females

( n = 190)

Figure 2: Showing frequency of IgM in pregnant female

( n = 190)

Table 1: Comparison of age, gestational age and gravida between IgG positive and negative groups ( n = 190)

Groups

n

Age

Gestational Age

Gravida

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

IgG Positive

60

28.19 ± 4.70

9.28 ± 3.14

3.26 ± 1.84

IgG Negative

130

25.92 ± 5.00

9.36 ± 3.20

2.63 ±1.85

p-value

 

0.005**

0.753

0.012**

**Statistically significant.

Table 2: Comparison of age, gestational age and gravida between IgM positive and negative groups ( n = 190)

Groups

n

Age

Gestational Age

Gravida

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

IgM Positive

9

29.44 ± 5.20

9.33 ± 3.74

2.56 ± 1.51

IgM Negative

181

26.49 ± 4.97

9.33 ± 3.16

2.84 ±1.88

p-value

 

0.074*

0.792*

0.806*

*Not Statistically significant

Table 3: IgG positivity in pregnant women according to family income ( n = 190)

Family Income

IgG Positive

IgG Negative

≤ 15,000

n=17

3 (5.0%)

14 (10.8%)

15,000 – 40,000

n=117

38 (63.3%)

79 (60.8%)

> 40,000

n=56

19 (31.7%)

37 (28.5%)

p-value

< 0.001*

< 0.001*

* Statistically significant.

Table 4: IgM positivity in pregnant women according to family Income ( n = 190)

Family Income

IgM Positive

IgM Negative

≤ 15,000

n=17

3 (33.30%)

14 (7.60%)

15,000 – 40,000

n=117

4 (44.40%)

113 (62.60%)

> 40,000

n=56

2 (22.20%)

54 (29.80%)

p-value 0.058. Not Significant.

Table 5: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women with history of abortion ( n = 190)

     

IgG

History of Abortion

Yes

No

Positive (n = 60)

20(33.30%)

40(66.70%)

Negative (n= 130)

21(16.30%)

109(83.70%)

     

p-value 0.01. Statistically significant.

Table 6: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women with history of abortion ( n = 190)

IgM

History of abortion

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

7(77.80%)

2(22.20%)

Negative (n= 181)

142(78.40%)

39(21.60%)

     

p-value 0.967. Not significant.

Figure 3: Association of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to complications in previous pregnancies ( n = 190)

.

Figure 4: Association of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to complications in previous pregnancies ( n = 190)

Table 7: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of contact with cat ( n = 190)

IgG

Contact with cat

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

29(49.10%)

31(50.90%)

Negative (n= 130)

104(79.70%)

26(20.30%)

     

p- value <0.01. Statistically significant.

Table 8: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of contact with cat ( n = 190)

IgM

Contact with cat

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

5(55.60%)

4(44.40%)

Negative (n= 181)

128(70.80%)

53(29.20%)

     

p-value 0.455. Not significant.

Figure 5: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of cleaning cats litter ( n = 190)

Figure 6:Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of cleaning cats litter ( n = 190)

Table 9: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of working or exposure to soil ( n = 190)

IgG

Exposure or Working with soil

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

40(66.70%)

20(33.30%)

Negative (n= 130)

103(75.00%)

27(21.10%)

     

p-value 0.076. Not significant.

Table 10: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of working or exposure to soil ( n = 190)

IgM

Exposure or Working with soil

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

3(33.30%)

6(66.70%)

Negative (n= 181)

140(77.20%)

41(22.80%)

     

p-value 0.008. Statistically significant.

Table 11: Association of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of eating raw/uncooked meat ( n = 190)

IgG

Eating raw/Uncooked meat

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

24(40.40%)

36(59.60%)

Negative (n= 130)

92(70.70%)

38(29.30%)

     

p-value < 0.001. Statistically significant.

Table 12: Association of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of eating raw/uncooked meat ( n = 190)

IgM

Eating of raw/uncooked meat

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

3(33.30%)

6(66.70%)

Negative (n= 181)

113(62.60%)

68(37.40%)

     

p-value 0.092. Not significant.

Table 13: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women with history of eating unwashed fruits and vegetables ( n = 190)

IgG

Eating unwashed/raw fruits/vegetables

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

10(17.50%)

50(82.50%)

Negative (n= 130)

63(48.80%)

67(51.20%)

     

p-value <0.001. Statistically significant.

Table 14: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women with history of eating unwashed fruits and vegetables ( n = 190)

IgM

Eating of unwashed/raw fruits/vegetables

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

1(11.10%)

8(88.90%)

Negative (n= 181)

73(40.40%)

108(59.60%)

     

p-value 0.157. Not significant.

Table 15: Association of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to source of drinking water ( n = 190)

IgG

Source of drinking Water

Tap water

Filter water

Positive (n = 60)

40(66.70%)

20(33.30%)

Negative (n= 130)

128(98.40%)

2(1.60%)

     

p-value <0.001. Statistically significant.

Table 16: Association of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to source of drinking water ( n = 190)

IgM

Source of drinking water

Tap water

Filter water

Positive (n = 9)

6(66.70%)

3(33.30%)

Negative (n= 181)

162(89.50%)

19(10.50%)

     

p-value 0.072. Not significant.

Table 17: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to washing of hands before eating ( n = 190)

IgG

Washing of hands before eating

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

1(1.80%)

59(98.20%)

Negative (n= 130)

2(1.60%)

128(98.40%)

     

p-value >0.999. Not significant.

Table 18: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to washing of hands before eating ( n = 190)

IgM

Washing of hands before eating

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

0(0.00%)

9(100.00%)

Negative (n= 181)

3(1.80%)

178(98.20%)

     

p-value > 0.999. Not significant.

Table 19: Association of IgG positivity in pregnant women with use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards ( n = 190)

IgG

Use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

5(8.80%)

55(91.20%)

Negative (n= 130)

7(5.70%)

123(94.30%)

     

p-value 0.523. Not significant.

Table 20: Association of IgM positivity in pregnant women with use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards ( n = 190)

IgM

Use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

2(22.20%)

7(77.80%)

Negative (n= 181)

10(5.80%)

171(94.20%)

     

p-value 0.113. Not significant.

The present study was conducted on 190 pregnant females attending Government, Lahore General Hospital and from a private setup named as Fatima Memorial Hospital coming for their antenatal checkups during first trimester. The detailed results are shown in the appendices. The summary of results is given in Tables 1- 20 and Figures 1- 6.

Figure 1 shows the frequency of IgG in pregnant females. Out of 190, IgG antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii were present in 60 (31.58%) females.

Figure 2 shows the frequency of IgM in pregnant females. Out of 190 pregnant females,

IgM antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii were present only in 9 (4.73%) females.

Table 1 shows the comparison of age, gestational age and gravida between IgG positive and negative females. The mean age of IgG positive group was 28.19 ± 4.70 and the mean number of gravida and gestational age of IgG positive group was 3.26 ± 1.84 and 9.28 ± 3.14 respectively. Whereas the mean age of IgG negative group was 25.92 ± 5.00 and the mean number of gravida and gestational age of IgG negative group was 2.63 ± 1.85 and 9.36 ± 3.20 respectively. There was no statistically significant differences in mean gestational age between IgG positive and negative groups (p-value = 0.753). The mean age of IgG positive group was statistically significant and higher as compared to IgG negative group (p-value = 0.005) similarly the mean gravida of IgG positive group was statistically significant and higher as compared to IgG negative group (p-value = 0.012).

Table 2 shows the comparison of age, gestational age and gravida between IgM positive and negative groups. The mean age IgM positive group was 29.44 ± 5.20 and the mean number of gravida and gestational age of IgM positive group was 2.56 ± 1.51 and 9.33 ± 3.74 respectively. Whereas the mean age of IgM negative group was 26.49 ± 4.97 and the mean number of gravida and gestational age of IgM negative group was 2.84 ±1.88 and 9.33 ± 3.16 respectively. The mean age of IgM positive group was generally higher as compared to IgM negative group and the mean gravida of IgM positive group was generally lower as compared to IgM negative group but these differences were not statistically significant (p-value = 0.074 and p-value = 0.806 respectively). Similarly there were no statistically significant differences in mean gestational age between IgM positive and negative groups (p-value = 0.792).

Table 3 shows the IgG positivity in pregnant women according to family income and there was statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and family income (p-value <0.001).

Table 4 shows the IgM positivity in pregnant women according to family income. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and family income ( p-value 0.058).

Table 5 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women with history of abortion. There was statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and history of abortion. The IgG antibodies were present in 20 (33.3%) females who had history of abortion whereas it was positive in 40 (66.70%) females who had no history of abortion (p-value 0.01).

Table 6 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women with history of abortion. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and history of abortion (p-value 0.967). The IgM antibodies were present in 2 (22.2%) females who had history of abortion whereas it was absent in 39 (21.6%) females who had history of abortion.

Figure 3 shows the association of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to complications in previous pregnancies. There was no statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and previous pregnancy complications ( p-value 0.265). The IgG antibodies were present in 4 (7.0%) females who had complication in previous pregnancy whereas it was absent in 4 (3.3%) females who had complication in previous pregnancy.

Figure 4 shows the association of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to complications in previous pregnancies. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and previous pregnancy complication (p-value 0.342). The IgM antibodies was present in 1 (11.1%) females who had complication in previous pregnancy whereas it was absent in 7 (4.1%) females who had complication in previous pregnancy.

Table 7 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of contact with cat. There was statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and contact with cat (p-value <0.01). The IgG antibodies were present in 31 (50.9%) females who had cat in house whereas it was absent in 26 (20.3%) females who had cat in house.

Table 8 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of contact with cat. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and contact with cat (p-value 0.455). The IgM antibodies were present in 4 (44.4%) females who had cat in house whereas it was absent in 53 (29.2%) females who had cat in house.

Figure 5 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of cleaning cats litter. There was no statistically significant association between IgG antibodies in women who had an experience to clean the cats litter (p-value 0.505). The IgG antibodies were present in 11 (17.5%) females who had an experience to clean the cats litter whereas it was absent in 18 (13.8%) females who had an experience to clean the cats litter.

Figure 6 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of cleaning cats litter. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and females who had an experience to clean the cats litter (p-value >0.999). The IgM antibodies were present in 1 (11.1%) females who had an experience to clean the cats litter whereas it was absent in 28 (15.2%) females who had an experience to clean the cats litter.

Table 9 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of working or exposure to soil. There was no statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and working with soil (p-value 0.076). The IgG antibodies were present in 20 (33.3%) females who worked with soil whereas IgG antibodies was absent in 27 (21.1%) females who worked with soil.

Table 10 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of working or exposure to soil. There was statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and working with soil (p-value 0.008). The IgM antibodies were present in 6 (66.7%) females who worked with soil whereas IgM antibodies were absent in 39 (22.8%) females who worked with soil. Therefore, working with soil can be a risk factor for pregnant women.

Table 11 shows the association of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of eating raw/uncooked meat. There was statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and eating raw/uncooked meat (p-value <0.001). The IgG antibodies were present in 36 (59.6%) females who ate raw/uncooked meat whereas it was absent in 38 (29.3%) females who ate raw/uncooked meat.

Table 12 shows the association of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of eating raw/uncooked meat. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and eating raw/uncooked meat (p-value 0.092). The IgM antibodies were present in 6 (66.7%) females who ate raw/uncooked meat whereas it was absent in 64 (37.4%) females who ate raw/uncooked meat.

Table 13 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women with history of eating unwashed fruits and vegetables. IgG antibodies were significantly associated with eating raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits (p-value <0.001). The IgG antibodies were present in 50 (82.5%) females who ate raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits whereas it was absent in 67 (51.2%) females who ate raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits.

Table 14 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women with history of eating unwashed fruits and vegetables. IgM antibodies were not significantly associated with eating raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits (p-value 0.157). The IgM antibodies were present in 8 (88.9%) females who ate raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits whereas it was absent in 102 (59.6%) females who ate raw/unwashed vegetable/fruits. Generally percentage of positive antibodies was higher so eating raw vegetables and unwashed fruits can be a risk factor for pregnant women.

Table 15 shows the association of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to source of drinking water. IgG antibodies were significantly associated with source of drinking water (p-value <0.001).

Table 16 shows the association of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to source of drinking water. IgM antibodies were not significantly associated with source of drinking water (p-value 0.072).

Table 17 shows the frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to washing of hands before eating. There was no significant association between IgG antibodies and washing of hands before eating (p-value >0.999).

Table 18 shows the frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to washing of hands before eating. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and washing of hands before eating (p-value >0.999). The IgM antibodies were present in 9 (100.0%) females who washed their hands before eating meals and IgM antibodies were absent in 178 (98.2%) females who washed their hands before eating meals.

Table 19 shows the association of IgG positivity in pregnant women with use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards. There was no statistically significant association between IgG antibodies and use of clean kitchen utensils before every use (p-value 0.523). The IgG antibodies were present in 55 (91.2%) females who washed kitchen utensils before every use and IgG antibodies were also absent in 123 (94.3%) females who washed kitchen utensils before every use.

Table 20 shows the association of IgM positivity in pregnant women with use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards. There was no statistically significant association between IgM antibodies and use of clean kitchen utensils before every use (p-value 0.113). The IgM antibodies were present in 7 (77.7%) females who washed kitchen utensils before every use and IgM antibodies were absent in 161 (94.2%) females who washed kitchen utensils before every use.

Figure 1: Showing frequency of IgG in pregnant females

( n = 190)

Figure 2: Showing frequency of IgM in pregnant female

( n = 190)

Table 1: Comparison of age, gestational age and gravida between IgG positive and negative groups ( n = 190)

Groups

n

Age

Gestational Age

Gravida

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

IgG Positive

60

28.19 ± 4.70

9.28 ± 3.14

3.26 ± 1.84

IgG Negative

130

25.92 ± 5.00

9.36 ± 3.20

2.63 ±1.85

p-value

 

0.005**

0.753

0.012**

**Statistically significant.

Table 2: Comparison of age, gestational age and gravida between IgM positive and negative groups ( n = 190)

Groups

n

Age

Gestational Age

Gravida

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

IgM Positive

9

29.44 ± 5.20

9.33 ± 3.74

2.56 ± 1.51

IgM Negative

181

26.49 ± 4.97

9.33 ± 3.16

2.84 ±1.88

p-value

 

0.074*

0.792*

0.806*

*Not Statistically significant

Table 3: IgG positivity in pregnant women according to family income ( n = 190)

Family Income

IgG Positive

IgG Negative

≤ 15,000

n=17

3 (5.0%)

14 (10.8%)

15,000 – 40,000

n=117

38 (63.3%)

79 (60.8%)

> 40,000

n=56

19 (31.7%)

37 (28.5%)

p-value

< 0.001*

< 0.001*

* Statistically significant.

Table 4: IgM positivity in pregnant women according to family Income ( n = 190)

Family Income

IgM Positive

IgM Negative

≤ 15,000

n=17

3 (33.30%)

14 (7.60%)

15,000 – 40,000

n=117

4 (44.40%)

113 (62.60%)

> 40,000

n=56

2 (22.20%)

54 (29.80%)

p-value 0.058. Not Significant.

Table 5: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women with history of abortion ( n = 190)

     

IgG

History of Abortion

Yes

No

Positive (n = 60)

20(33.30%)

40(66.70%)

Negative (n= 130)

21(16.30%)

109(83.70%)

     

p-value 0.01. Statistically significant.

Table 6: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women with history of abortion ( n = 190)

IgM

History of abortion

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

7(77.80%)

2(22.20%)

Negative (n= 181)

142(78.40%)

39(21.60%)

     

p-value 0.967. Not significant.

Figure 3: Association of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to complications in previous pregnancies ( n = 190)

.

Figure 4: Association of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to complications in previous pregnancies ( n = 190)

Table 7: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of contact with cat ( n = 190)

IgG

Contact with cat

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

29(49.10%)

31(50.90%)

Negative (n= 130)

104(79.70%)

26(20.30%)

     

p- value <0.01. Statistically significant.

Table 8: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of contact with cat ( n = 190)

IgM

Contact with cat

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

5(55.60%)

4(44.40%)

Negative (n= 181)

128(70.80%)

53(29.20%)

     

p-value 0.455. Not significant.

Figure 5: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of cleaning cats litter ( n = 190)

Figure 6:Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of cleaning cats litter ( n = 190)

Table 9: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of working or exposure to soil ( n = 190)

IgG

Exposure or Working with soil

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

40(66.70%)

20(33.30%)

Negative (n= 130)

103(75.00%)

27(21.10%)

     

p-value 0.076. Not significant.

Table 10: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of working or exposure to soil ( n = 190)

IgM

Exposure or Working with soil

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

3(33.30%)

6(66.70%)

Negative (n= 181)

140(77.20%)

41(22.80%)

     

p-value 0.008. Statistically significant.

Table 11: Association of IgG positivity in pregnant women having history of eating raw/uncooked meat ( n = 190)

IgG

Eating raw/Uncooked meat

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

24(40.40%)

36(59.60%)

Negative (n= 130)

92(70.70%)

38(29.30%)

     

p-value < 0.001. Statistically significant.

Table 12: Association of IgM positivity in pregnant women having history of eating raw/uncooked meat ( n = 190)

IgM

Eating of raw/uncooked meat

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

3(33.30%)

6(66.70%)

Negative (n= 181)

113(62.60%)

68(37.40%)

     

p-value 0.092. Not significant.

Table 13: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women with history of eating unwashed fruits and vegetables ( n = 190)

IgG

Eating unwashed/raw fruits/vegetables

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

10(17.50%)

50(82.50%)

Negative (n= 130)

63(48.80%)

67(51.20%)

     

p-value <0.001. Statistically significant.

Table 14: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women with history of eating unwashed fruits and vegetables ( n = 190)

IgM

Eating of unwashed/raw fruits/vegetables

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

1(11.10%)

8(88.90%)

Negative (n= 181)

73(40.40%)

108(59.60%)

     

p-value 0.157. Not significant.

Table 15: Association of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to source of drinking water ( n = 190)

IgG

Source of drinking Water

Tap water

Filter water

Positive (n = 60)

40(66.70%)

20(33.30%)

Negative (n= 130)

128(98.40%)

2(1.60%)

     

p-value <0.001. Statistically significant.

Table 16: Association of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to source of drinking water ( n = 190)

IgM

Source of drinking water

Tap water

Filter water

Positive (n = 9)

6(66.70%)

3(33.30%)

Negative (n= 181)

162(89.50%)

19(10.50%)

     

p-value 0.072. Not significant.

Table 17: Frequency of IgG positivity in pregnant women according to washing of hands before eating ( n = 190)

IgG

Washing of hands before eating

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

1(1.80%)

59(98.20%)

Negative (n= 130)

2(1.60%)

128(98.40%)

     

p-value >0.999. Not significant.

Table 18: Frequency of IgM positivity in pregnant women according to washing of hands before eating ( n = 190)

IgM

Washing of hands before eating

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

0(0.00%)

9(100.00%)

Negative (n= 181)

3(1.80%)

178(98.20%)

     

p-value > 0.999. Not significant.

Table 19: Association of IgG positivity in pregnant women with use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards ( n = 190)

IgG

Use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards

No

Yes

Positive (n = 60)

5(8.80%)

55(91.20%)

Negative (n= 130)

7(5.70%)

123(94.30%)

     

p-value 0.523. Not significant.

Table 20: Association of IgM positivity in pregnant women with use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards ( n = 190)

IgM

Use of clean kitchen knives and cutting boards

No

Yes

Positive (n = 9)

2(22.20%)

7(77.80%)

Negative (n= 181)

10(5.80%)

171(94.20%)

     

p-value 0.113. Not significant.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: