SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Prenatal lead exposure and risk of Pregnancy-Induced hypertension: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Maternal and Umbilical Cord Blood Levels of Lead and Cadmium in Sudanese Women with Preeclampsia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Maternal blood lead levels and proximity to legacy mining contamination in Kabwe, Zambia: socioeconomic disparities and potential implications on fetal health.Environmental science and pollution research international · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH) affects up to 10% of pregnancies, and its incidence has been rising in recent years. Emerging evidence suggests that prenatal lead exposure, even at low concentrations, may be a potential risk factor for PIH. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the association between maternal blood lead levels and the risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension by synthesizing findings from multiple epidemiological studies.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science for studies published between 1993 and 2023, using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and expert-defined keywords. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 5,918 titles were screened. Studies were included based on predefined eligibility criteria. A random-effects meta-analysis and linear regression were used to evaluate the association between prenatal lead exposure and pregnancy-induced hypertension outcomes.
resultsThe analysis included cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, with sample sizes ranging from 39 to 971 participants. Women with preeclampsia had significantly higher mean blood lead levels (18.4 µg/dL; 95% CI: 16.1-20.7) compared to normotensive controls (7.4 µg/dL; 95% CI: 6.2-8.6), resulting in a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 2.2 (95% CI: 1.8-2.6; p < 0.01). Considerable heterogeneity was observed across continents (I² = 92.5%), study designs (I² = 87.3%), and sample sizes (I² = 89.1%). Publication bias was identified using funnel plots and Egger's test (p < 0.05). Sensitivity analyses, excluding studies with extreme values, confirmed the robustness of the association.
conclusionThis meta-analysis provides compelling evidence that prenatal blood lead exposure is associated with an elevated risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension. These findings highlight the importance of proactive environmental monitoring and preventive clinical measures to minimize maternal lead exposure and enhance pregnancy outcomes.
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.