ArticleJAMA network open2025
Long-Term Risk of Recurrent Cervical Artery Dissection and Stroke After Pregnancy.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ESO annual stroke evidence update 2025.European stroke journal · 2026Review
- Errors in Affiliations.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
71 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is a leading cause of stroke in young people and can occur during pregnancy. In women with prior CeAD, it is unclear whether future pregnancies increase the risk of recurrent CeAD, stroke, or death. Objective: To compare the frequency of recurrent CeAD, stroke, or death as a composite outcome between patients with CeAD who became pregnant vs those who did not. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Long-Term Risk of Recurrent Cervical Artery Dissection and Stroke After Pregnancy (LONG-RECAP) study was an international, multicenter, registry-based, explorative cohort study with data from May 1, 1990, and April 30, 2023, among patients with CeAD at 33 stroke centers across 9 countries who had at least 6 months of follow-up for whom detailed information was available on absence vs presence of subsequent pregnancies and the occurrence of outcome events. Exposure: Pregnancy after CeAD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite of recurrent CeAD, stroke (any type), and death (all causes) during follow-up at least 6 months after initial CeAD. Secondary outcomes were the components of the composite outcome. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with and without adjustment for age was used to examine the association between pregnancy and outcomes. Results: Among 1013 female patients with CeAD (median [IQR] age, 42 [35-48] years), 114 (11.3%) became pregnant during a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.3 (2.0-11.3) years. The composite outcome occurred in 10 of 114 patients (8.8%), including 7 patients with recurrent CeADs, 2 with ischemic strokes, and 1 with intracerebral hemorrhage, in the pregnancy group compared with 65 of 899 patients (7.2%), including 32 with recurrent CeAD, 26 with ischemic strokes, 4 with intracerebral hemorrhages, and 5 deaths (2 patients had 2 outcomes), in the nonpregnancy group (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.56-2.08; age-adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.38-1.56). Five of 10 events in the pregnancy group occurred post partum (4 CeADs and 1 stroke). Age-adjusted hazard ratios for secondary outcomes were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.43-2.46) for recurrent CeAD, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.13-2.12) for ischemic stroke, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.11-9.32) for intracerebral hemorrhage, and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.03-24.88) for death. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of women with a history of CeAD, becoming pregnant was not associated with an increased risk of recurrent CeAD, stroke, or death. These findings may be helpful for individual counseling and family planning for women with prior CeAD.
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.