ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2026
Healthy Live Births as Censoring Versus Competing Events in Studies of Prenatal Medication Use.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundPregnancy loss is recognised as a competing event in studies of prenatal medication use. A healthy live birth also precludes subsequent pregnancy outcomes, yet is often censored in time-to-event analyses.
objectivesUsing a Monte Carlo simulation, we examined bias resulting from censoring versus accounting for healthy live birth as a competing event in estimates of the total effect of prenatal medication use on pregnancy outcomes.
methodsWe simulated 2000 cohorts of 7500 conceptions with chronic hypertension under 12 treatment profiles. Ongoing pregnancies were indexed into the trial and randomly assigned to initiate or not initiate antihypertensives. Using time-to-event methods, we estimated absolute risks, risk differences (RD) per 100 pregnancies, and risk ratios (RR) for two outcomes, mirroring a prior trial: (i) composite fetal death or severe prenatal preeclampsia and (ii) small for gestational age (SGA) live birth. For the composite outcome, we conducted analyses where non-preeclamptic live birth was: (1) a censoring event and (2) a competing event. For SGA live birth, we conducted analyses where fetal death and non-SGA live birth were: (1) censoring events; (2) a competing event and censoring event, respectively; and (3) competing events.
resultsFor the composite outcome, censoring non-preeclamptic live births overestimated the absolute risk by 42.3 to 49.1 percentage points; RD and RR estimates were biased (e.g., RD bias range -6.18 to 0.46). For SGA live birth, analyses censoring non-SGA live births (with or without fetal death as a competing event) overestimated absolute risk by 30.0 to 37.7 and 40.9 to 52.4 percentage points on average; RD and RR estimates were biased (e.g., RD bias range -7.45 to 0.79 and -9.62 to 1.81, respectively). Analyses in which healthy live births were modelled as competing events produced unbiased risks, RDs and RRs.
conclusionsCensoring healthy live births resulted in overestimated risks as well as biased and imprecise total treatment effect estimates. Such inaccuracies about risks undermine informed patient-provider decision-making.
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.