ArticleChinese journal of integrative medicine2017
Epidemiological investigation of risk factors of the pregnant women with early spontaneous abortion in Beijing.
Article in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Safety of hepatitis E vaccination for pregnancy: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 clinical trial.Emerging microbes & infections · 2023Trial
- Analysis of Genomic Copy Number Variation in Miscarriages During Early and Middle Pregnancy.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Effect of electromagnetic field on abortion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2021Article
- ATP6V1G3 Acts as a Key Gene in Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion: An Integrated Bioinformatics Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Article
- Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the risk factors of the pregnant women with early spontaneous abortion in Beijing.
methodsA total of 34,417 cases of pregnant women were participated in the survey from January 2000 to December 2013. A questionnaire was informed to each woman. The content of questionnaire includes four parts: general condition, obstetrical history, past history and family history, and living environment and habits. The mental condition was evaluated with Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS).
resultsA total of 32,296 questionnaires were collected. The spontaneous abortion rate in the total sample was 3.0%. There was no significant difference between the normal pregnancy group and spontaneous abortion group in terms of general condition, obstetrical and past history (P>0.05). Significant differences between the two groups were found in terms of decoration during pregnancy, keeping pets, near mobile communication base station within 100 m around the residence, drinking during pregnancy, having a cold during pregnancy and SAS (P<0.05). Having a cold during pregnancy, decoration during pregnancy, near mobile communication base station within 100 m around the residence, keeping pets and high SAS were determined the independent risk factors of spontaneous abortion by Logistic regression analysis.
conclusionsHaving a cold during pregnancy, decoration, keeping pets, near mobile communication base station within 100 m around the residence and high SAS are the independent risk factors of spontaneous abortion in Beijing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.