ArticleMaternal and child health journal2016
Risk of Preeclampsia in Pregnancies After Assisted Reproductive Technology and Ovarian Stimulation.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association betweenFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Observational
- Prevalence and predictive risk factors of hypertensive disorders in pregnant women at high risk for gestational diabetes. The PREeclampsia in DIabetiC gestaTION (PREDICTION) study.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025Article
- The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) initiative on pre-eclampsia: A pragmatic guide for first-trimester screening and prevention.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2019Article
- Knockdown of pleiotrophin increases the risk of preeclampsia following vitrified-thawed embryo transfer.International journal of oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective To compare the risk of preeclampsia among spontaneously conceived pregnancies to those after hyperestrogenic ovarian stimulation (hyperestrogenic OS) with and without assisted reproductive technology (ART), and stimulation with non-hyperestrogenic aromatase inhibitor stimulation (non-hyperestrogenic OS). Methods Live-born singleton deliveries among women 20-49 years were identified in the 2004-2012 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases using ICD-9 and CPT codes. Maternal characteristics were compared using Chi squared and Fisher exact tests. We performed multilevel multivariable logistic regression, controlling for maternal age, parity, comorbid conditions, and region of delivery, and calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95 % confidence intervals for mild and severe preeclampsia. Results 1,014,526 spontaneously conceived, 6881 hyperestrogenic OS with ART, 27,516 hyperestrogenic OS without ART, and 2117 non-hyperestrogenic OS pregnancies were identified. The adjusted odds of developing preeclampsia were increased for deliveries after hyperestrogenic OS with ART (mild preeclampsia aOR 1.42, 1.24-1.62; severe preeclampsia aOR 1.83, 1.59-2.11) and without ART (mild preeclampsia aOR 1.32, 1.24-1.42; severe preeclampsia aOR 1.53, 1.41-1.66). Adjusted odds of preeclampsia were similar between spontaneously conceived and non-hyperestrogenic OS pregnancies. Conclusions for Practice Risk of preeclampsia after ART may in part be related to supraphysiologic estrogen associated with hyperestrogenic OS.
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.