ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Impact of pre-pregnancy body mass index on preeclampsia.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Angiogenic Imbalance in Preeclampsia: Profiling VEGF A, sFlt1, PlGF, and sFlt1/PlGF Ratios.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Baicalin alleviates HScientific reports · 2025Article
- Pathophysiology of Maternal Obesity and Hypertension in Pregnancy.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It remains unclear how pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) affects preeclampsia in the Chinese population, primarily due to insufficient large-scale research on this topic. Objective: The study aimed to determine the relationship between pre-pregnancy BMI and (severe) preeclampsia in the Chinese population, providing a detailed description of the findings. Methods: The retrospective study included a total of 75,773 pregnant women registered between 2016 and 2020. These participants were categorized into four groups based on their pre-pregnancy BMI: underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m Results: A lower risk of developing preeclampsia was observed in the underweight population, with an OR of 0.604 (95%CI, 0.507-0.719). In contrast, women who were overweight or obese during the pre-pregnancy period demonstrated a significantly higher risk of preeclampsia, with ORs of 2.211 (95%CI, 1.967-2.486) and 3.662 (95%CI, 3.026-4.431), respectively. After adjusting for confounding factors, the elevated risk of preeclampsia persisted, showing ORs of 2.152(95%CI, 1.911-2.425) for the overweight population and 3.493 (95%CI, 2.874-4.245) for those who were obese, while the risk for underweight women remained lower, with an OR of 0.609(95%CI, 0.511-0.727). For severe preeclampsia, the risk was also higher in the overweight and obese participants after adjusting for confounders, demonstrating ORs of 1.652(95%CI, 1.364-2.001) and 2.762(95%CI, 2.014-3.788), respectively. The underweight population exhibited a lower risk of severe preeclampsia, with an OR of 0.720(95%CI, 0.565-0.919). In addition, these risks were not significantly associated with maternal age. Conclusion: Regardless of adjustment for confounders, underweight women demonstrated a lower risk of preeclampsia, whereas the overweight/obese population exhibited a higher occurrence of both preeclampsia and severe preeclampsia. These associations were not influenced by maternal age.
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.