ArticleInternational journal of women's dermatology2015
Retrospective evidence on outcomes and experiences of pregnancy and childbirth in epidermolysis bullosa in Australia and New Zealand.
Article in International journal of women's dermatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations on pregnancy, childbirth and aftercare in epidermolysis bullosa: a consensus-based guideline.The British journal of dermatology · 2022Guideline
- Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (DEB): How Can Pregnancy Alter the Course of This Rare Disease? An Updated Literature Review on Obstetrical Management with an Additional Italian Experience.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Blistering disorders and their impact on women and their families in theInternational journal of women's dermatology · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPregnancy in epidermolysis bullosa (EB) has not been comprehensively studied.
objectiveWe aimed to develop a foundational database, which could provide peri-obstetric advice in EB.
methodsSurvey questionnaires were sent to obstetricians, unaffected mothers of EB babies, and mothers with EB. Results were analyzed using chi-square, Fisher exact, and t-tests.
resultsOut of 1346 obstetricians surveyed, 195 responded, and only 14 had encountered EB. All recommended normal vaginal delivery (NVD), except for one elective Caesarean section (CS). We received responses from 75 unaffected mothers who had delivered EB babies. They had significantly more complications in their EB pregnancies compared to their non-EB pregnancies. A further 44 women with various types of EB who had given birth responded. Most delivered via NVD and had no significant increase in complications in both their EB and non-EB pregnancies. In both groups, there were no significant differences in blistering at birth in babies delivered via NVD and CS.
conclusionIn conclusion, most patients with EB who are capable of giving birth do not have an increased risk for pregnancy-related complications and NVD appears to be safe. Awareness of this data amongst obstetricians and dermatologists should lead to improved quality of care for mothers and babies affected with EB.
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.