SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025
Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. 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.
- Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- The use of alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks in pregnancy in the UK.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Preconception malnutrition among women and girls in south Asia: prevalence, determinants, and association with pregnancy and birth outcomes.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRoutine primary care data may be a valuable resource for preconception health research and to inform the provision of preconception care.
aimTo review how primary care data could provide information on the prevalence of preconception indicators and examine associations with maternal and offspring health outcomes. DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review of observational studies using UK routine primary care data.
methodLiterature searches were conducted in March 2023 using five databases to identify observational studies that used national primary care data from individuals aged 15-49 years. Preconception indicators were defined as medical, behavioural, and social factors that may impact future pregnancies; health outcomes included those that may occur during and after pregnancy.
resultsFrom 5259 screened records, 42 articles were included. The prevalence of 37 preconception indicator measures was described for female patients, ranging from 0.01% for sickle cell disease to >20% for each of advanced maternal age, previous caesarean section (among those with a recorded pregnancy), overweight, obesity, smoking, depression, and anxiety (irrespective of pregnancy). Few studies reported indicators for male patients (
conclusionThe findings demonstrated that routinely collected UK primary care data could be used to identify patients' preconception care needs. Linking primary care data with health outcomes collected in other datasets is underutilised, but could help to quantify how optimising preconception health and care could reduce adverse outcomes for mothers and children.
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.