ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Effect of advanced maternal age on the risk of adverse birth outcomes: a retrospective cohort 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to investigate differences in pregnancy outcomes and potential risk factors between women of advanced maternal age (AMA, 35–39 years) and those of very advanced maternal age (vAMA, 40 years and older).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included women (age ≥ 35) who were single pregnancy and delivered at a tertiary comprehensive hospital in China between 2014 and 2020 at a major urban Chinese medical center. Patient medical records were reviewed, and relevant clinical data were collected and organized into a structured data spreadsheet for analysis. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square analyses, while continuous variables were compared using either the Student t-test or Wilcoxon tests, depending on the data distribution. Logistic regression was employed to identify and evaluate risk factors.
resultsThis study encompassed 19,560 pregnant, and divided into two groups: the AMA group with 16,131 patients and the vAMA group with 3,429 patients. A lower rate of gravidity and parity were observed in the vAMA group (P < 0.001). Preexisting hypertension, diabetes, and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) were more prevalent. The AMA group exhibited an increased rate of spontaneous deliveries, and precipitated labor (P < 0.001), while the vAMA group had a higher rate of cesarean delivery (CD) (P < 0.001). Additionally, the vAMA group had a significantly shorter gestational age at delivery (P < 0.001). Differences in birth outcomes between the AMA and vAMA groups were primarily observed in very preterm births (28–34 weeks) (P = 0.004) and low birth weight (LBW, 1,500-2,500 g) (P < 0.001). Incidences of gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, and adherent placenta were all significantly higher in the vAMA group (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis identified that gestational hypertension and placenta previa are risk factors for adverse birth outcomes in AMA women, while gestational hypertension and adherent placenta are in vAMA women.
conclusionsOur study suggests that vAMA women have an increased risk of developing gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, CD, placenta previa, and adherent placenta compared to women of AMA. Gestational hypertension, placenta previa, and adherent placenta were identified as the most important risks for preterm birth and LBW in AMA and vAMA women. Subgroup analysis of birth outcomes suggests that gestational diabetes is a risk factor for LBW and moderate preterm birth in AMA women. These results provide valuable data for prenatal counseling of patients with advanced maternal age.
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.