ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2025
Trends in Risk of Pregnancy Loss Among US Women by Metropolitan Status, 2000-2018.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 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.
- Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, perceived stress, and miscarriage risk in a cohort of US Black women.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in patients treated for glioma before or during pregnancy: a single-institution retrospective series.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Adverse Obstetrical Outcomes with In-Utero Exposure to Indoor Macrocyclic Trichothecenes,Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 20% of pregnancies end in spontaneous loss, an outcome associated with adverse health consequences. Statistically stable estimates of the risk of pregnancy loss are limited for nonmetropolitan populations due to small sample sizes.
objectivesThis study evaluated the utility of the enhanced Modified Kalman Filter (eMKF) in producing estimates of the risk of pregnancy loss for subgroups of US women with small sample sizes to examine recent trends.
methodsData from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG; 2006-2019) were used to estimate trends in the risk of self-reported pregnancy loss (miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy) among US women (15-44 years) who reported at least one completed pregnancy (excluding induced abortions) conceived during 2000-2018 (n = 17,314 women, 35,988 pregnancies) by metropolitan status and maternal age. The eMKF was used to smooth estimates over groups and time. We compared the relative 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of model-based estimates to direct estimates to assess improvements in precision.
resultsAmong completed pregnancies conceived during 2000-2018, 21.6% ended in pregnancy loss. Relative 95% CIs for model-based estimates were 33.0% and 53.0% smaller for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan groups, respectively, than direct estimates. After adjustment, the risk of pregnancy loss for women ages 15-44 increased by a relative 1% annually for both metropolitan (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% CI 1.01, 1.02) and nonmetropolitan (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.01) women. The risk of pregnancy loss increased for metropolitan women ages 15-19 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.01), 20-24 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.01), 25-29 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01, 1.02), and 30-34 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01, 1.03).
conclusionsRisk of pregnancy loss increased by a relative 1% annually for women overall, and by 1%-2% annually among subgroups of women ages 15-34 in metropolitan areas. The eMKF provided improvements in estimate precision relative to direct estimates.
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.