ArticleEpidemiology and health2026
Evaluation of gestational age by pregnancy outcomes and distribution of pregnancy-related codes in Korean claims data.
Article in Epidemiology and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Metformin Use Before Assisted Reproductive Technology and Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Nationwide Cohort Study.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate a fixed-duration algorithm for gestational age (GA) estimation according to pregnancy outcomes and to describe the GA distribution of pregnancy-related codes in Korea.
methodsWe included 351,055 pregnancy episodes (2019-2022) from linked data between the National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Immunization Registry Information System (KIRIS). GA from claims data was estimated by subtracting fixed durations from the delivery date (algorithm-based GA), and GA derived from KIRIS was defined as the gold standard. Accuracy was evaluated as the proportion of episodes in which the difference between the estimated GA and the reference standard fell within ±2 weeks. We described the distributions of the GA at which each prenatal test, pregnancy complication, and diagnostic code was recorded.
resultsAlgorithm-based GA estimation showed high accuracy for live births (92.2% within ±2 weeks) but markedly lower accuracy for non-live birth outcomes, including stillbirth (3.3%), termination (7.2%), spontaneous abortion (45.2%), and ectopic pregnancy (20.0%). In additional analyses aimed at identifying potential indicators for improving GA estimation, most events occurred within clinically expected timeframes, although some individual codes exhibited poor temporal alignment.
conclusionsAlgorithm-based GA estimation using claims data performed well for live births but demonstrated limited accuracy for non-live birth outcomes. Incorporating information from prenatal tests and pregnancy complications may enhance GA estimation.
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.