ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
The predictive potential of the placental chorioangioma diameter for adverse pregnancy outcomes: a single-centre retrospective study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlacental chorioangioma (PCA) is a rare placental tumour that may significantly compromise pregnancy outcomes. However, the optimal diameter cutoff value for predicting adverse outcomes remains controversial, warranting further investigation.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 94 pregnant women diagnosed with PCA at Wenzhou Central Hospital between January 2013 and July 2025. Additionally, stratified random sampling was used to select 159 pregnant women without a placental tumour during the same period as the non-PCA group. The basic information and pregnancy outcomes of the two groups were compared. Groups with adverse pregnancy outcomes (n = 57) and those without adverse pregnancy outcomes (n = 37) were further defined. The risk variables for adverse pregnancy outcomes in PCA patients were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The therapeutic utility of the PCA diameter in evaluating adverse pregnancy outcomes in PCA patients was examined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. After stratifying the diameter, the incidence rates of adverse outcomes in different diameter intervals were statistically analysed.
resultsMultivariate logistic regression revealed that the PCA diameter was a significant, though modest, independent risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes (OR = 1.026, 95% CI: 1.003–1.051, P = 0.027), implying a 2.6% increase in risk per 1-mm increase in diameter. ROC analysis demonstrated that a PCA diameter cutoff of 4.7 cm predicted adverse outcomes (82.1% sensitivity, 50.0% specificity), with an AUC of 0.705 (95% CI: 0.600-0.811, P = 0.002). Abortion, mirror syndrome, foetal hydrops, foetal heart failure, foetal anaemia, intrauterine foetal death, and neonatal death mainly occurred with a PCA diameter > 9 cm.
conclusionThis study identifies a PCA diameter cutoff of 4.7 cm as a useful clinical tool for risk stratification. Pregnant women with a PCA diameter > 4.7 cm face higher risks of adverse outcomes, prompting recommendations for ultrasound evaluations every 1–2 weeks. These assessments should include tumour dimensions, amniotic fluid index, umbilical artery, foetal middle cerebral artery, foetal ductus venosus, and foetal echocardiography to detect complications early. A PCA diameter exceeding 9 cm significantly increases the risk of serious complications, necessitating close monitoring or taking treatment measures.
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.