Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26975379›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2016

Deconstructing the smoking-preeclampsia paradox through a counterfactual framework.

Miguel Angel Luque-Fernandez, Helga Zoega, Unnur Valdimarsdottir, Michelle A Williams

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Miguel Angel Luque-FernandezDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. mluquefe@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6683-5164
Helga ZoegaFaculty of Medicine, Center of Public Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Unnur ValdimarsdottirDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Michelle A WilliamsDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Harvard University · USUniversity of Iceland · IS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although smoking during pregnancy may lead to many adverse outcomes, numerous studies have reported a paradoxical inverse association between maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and preeclampsia. Using a counterfactual framework we aimed to explore the structure of this paradox as being a consequence of selection bias. Using a case-control study nested in the Icelandic Birth Registry (1309 women), we show how this selection bias can be explored and corrected for. Cases were defined as any case of pregnancy induced hypertension or preeclampsia occurring after 20 weeks' gestation and controls as normotensive mothers who gave birth in the same year. First, we used directed acyclic graphs to illustrate the common bias structure. Second, we used classical logistic regression and mediation analytic methods for dichotomous outcomes to explore the structure of the bias. Lastly, we performed both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to estimate the amount of bias due to an uncontrolled confounder and corrected for it. The biased effect of smoking was estimated to reduce the odds of preeclampsia by 28 % (OR 0.72, 95 %CI 0.52, 0.99) and after stratification by gestational age at delivery (<37 vs. ≥37 gestation weeks) by 75 % (OR 0.25, 95 %CI 0.10, 0.68). In a mediation analysis, the natural indirect effect showed and OR > 1, revealing the structure of the paradox. The bias-adjusted estimation of the smoking effect on preeclampsia showed an OR of 1.22 (95 %CI 0.41, 6.53). The smoking-preeclampsia paradox appears to be an example of (1) selection bias most likely caused by studying cases prevalent at birth rather than all incident cases from conception in a pregnancy cohort, (2) omitting important confounders associated with both smoking and preeclampsia (preventing the outcome to develop) and (3) controlling for a collider (gestation weeks at delivery). Future studies need to consider these aspects when studying and interpreting the association between smoking and pregnancy outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleGestational AgeHumansHypertensionIcelandLogistic ModelsPre-EclampsiaPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRegistriesSmokingYoung AdultEpidemiology methodsPerinatal mortalityPreeclampsiaSelection biasSmoking

Identifiers

PMID26975379
OpenAlexW2299377172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.