ArticlePloS one2022
Patterns of antiemetic medication use during pregnancy: A multi-country retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Antipsychotic drug use during pregnancy and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of women's mental health · 2026Pooled it
- A Scoping Review of 5-HTPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- PregMedNet: Multifaceted maternal medication impacts on neonatal complications.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Dispensing of Antiemetics During Pregnancy in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2005-2020.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- PregMedNet: Multifaceted Maternal Medication Impacts on Neonatal Complications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Data resource profile: PharmaNet, the database for prescription drug dispensing in British Columbia, Canada.International journal of population data science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare patterns in use of different antiemetics during pregnancy in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, between 2002 and 2014.
methodsWe constructed population-based cohorts of pregnant women using administrative healthcare data from five Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Saskatchewan), the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from the United Kingdom, and the IBM MarketScan Research Databases from the United States. We included pregnancies ending in live births, stillbirth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion. We determined maternal use of antiemetics from pharmacy claims in Canada and the United States and from prescriptions in the United Kingdom.
resultsThe most common outcome of 3 848 734 included pregnancies (started 2002-2014) was live birth (66.7% of all pregnancies) followed by spontaneous abortion (20.2%). Use of antiemetics during pregnancy increased over time in all three countries. Canada had the highest prevalence of use of prescription antiemetics during pregnancy (17.7% of pregnancies overall, 13.2% of pregnancies in 2002, and 18.9% in 2014), followed by the United States (14.0% overall, 8.9% in 2007, and 18.1% in 2014), and the United Kingdom (5.0% overall, 4.2% in 2002, and 6.5% in 2014). Besides use of antiemetic drugs being considerably lower in the United Kingdom, the increase in its use over time was more modest. The most commonly used antiemetic was combination doxylamine/pyridoxine in Canada (95.2% of pregnancies treated with antiemetics), ondansetron in the United States (72.2%), and prochlorperazine in the United Kingdom (63.5%).
conclusionsIn this large cohort study, we observed an overall increase in antiemetic use during pregnancy, and patterns of use varied across jurisdictions. Continued monitoring of antiemetic use and further research are warranted to better understand the reasons for differences in use of these medications and to assess their benefit-risk profile in this population.
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.