ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Patient-reported outcomes during pregnancy and delivery in epidermolysis bullosa.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch on pregnancy in women with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) and its effect on maternal disease activity is limited. Lack of evidence poses significant challenges for patient management.
objectiveThis study aimed to retrospectively characterise the spectrum and course of patient-reported symptoms and complications during pregnancy referring to the EB House Austria patient cohort.
methodsData on pregnancy outcomes, clinical symptoms, and EB disease activity before, during, and after pregnancy were collected using a structured questionnaire. To specify the impact of disease severity, the responders were classified into three groups based on the individual overall EB phenotype (mild, moderate, severe) prior to pregnancy (baseline). The pseudonymised data were analysed descriptively and complemented by a comprehensive literature review.
resultsThis study assessed 33 pregnancies in 19 women encompassing all major EB subtypes. Most reported parameters, including EB lesional burden, remained stable during pregnancy. A trend towards symptom exacerbation was reported by patients with moderate EB, while those with severe EB more often recalled some symptomatic improvement. Anaemia was documented in 30% of pregnancies, predominantly among moderate to severe EB patients. Vaginal delivery constituted the predominant mode of birth (67%). Caesarean section rates increased with EB severity (0% in mild, 38% in moderate, and 50% in severe EB groups). Among the caesarean deliveries, antenatal vulvovaginal lesions were recalled in 70% of cases. Severe perineal tears were the most common perinatal complication, occurring in 15% of pregnancies and primarily in the moderate and severe cohorts. Due to sample size limitations, no formal statistical hypothesis testing was conducted.
conclusionReferring to a limited cohort size, our findings suggest that pregnancy management in women with EB is feasible, though antenatal and perinatal complication rates rise with disease severity. Vaginal delivery appears to be a viable option and was the preferred method in most cases. In planned caesarean sections, neuraxial anaesthesia was not associated with adverse events. Early identification and treatment of anaemia in severe EB are critical, and proactive supportive strategies should be implemented to facilitate breastfeeding.
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.