ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Considerations for the Analysis of Urinary Environmental Chemical Concentrations During Pregnancy.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPregnancy physiology may impact indicators of hydration, affecting exposure assessment in gestational studies with urinary chemical biomarkers.
methodsWe aimed to characterize hydration and demonstrate the impact of different methods for standardizing urinary chemical biomarker concentrations on exposure descriptives in the Human Placenta and Phthalates Study (n = 303, 2017-2020), a prospective pregnancy cohort with eight study visits between 12 and 38 weeks of gestation. We assessed trajectories and predictors of hydration using urine flow rate (UFR) and specific gravity (SG). Likewise, we examined trajectories and predictors of mono-n-butyl phthalate (MBP), for which concentrations were unstandardized or standardized via UFR (analyte excretion rates), SG alone (Boeniger method), or covariate-adjusted SG (O'Brien method). We used generalized additive mixed effects models to examine trajectories. We used linear mixed effects models to investigate participant demographic and pregnancy characteristics influencing UFR and SG, and agreement between unstandardized and standardized MBP concentrations.
resultsAs pregnancy progressed, SG declined linearly, whereas UFR varied in a nonlinear manner. Several demographic and pregnancy characteristics, notably race and ethnicity, were associated with UFR and SG. Unstandardized and standardized MBP concentrations showed good agreement, with lower agreement observed between concentrations standardized using UFR (analyte excretion rates) relative to SG (Boeniger and O'Brien methods). Nevertheless, trajectories and predictors of MBP concentrations were similar across all standardization approaches.
conclusionsDespite systematic variations in hydration across gestation and by demographic and pregnancy characteristics, methods commonly used for standardizing urinary concentrations of chemical biomarkers were robust to differences in the hydration indicator as well as the standardization method employed.
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.