ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Investigating and quantifying selection bias in research using placental pathology samples.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
Abstract
Introduction: Increasing research interest has focused on placental pathology and pregnancy outcomes. Placental pathology examinations that are requested by the delivering provider are often used for research due to convenience, potentially introducing selection bias. We leveraged a large cohort of prospectively collected and examined placentas to compare prevalences of placental pathology and to quantify potential selection bias. Methods: All placentas were prospectively collected from participants and pathology examinations were completed in the Stress, Pregnancy, and Health (SPAH) study, regardless of delivering provider request. In all cases, placental pathology was categorized and graded into four major groups: acute inflammation (AI), chronic inflammation (CI), fetal vascular malperfusion (FVM), and maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM). We compared the distribution of placental pathology in cases with and without pathology examination requests. Odds ratios (OR) for preterm birth (PTB) and small for gestational age (SGA) infants were calculated in the whole cohort and compared with the requested subset. Relative odds ratios (ROR) were used to quantify the magnitude of selection bias. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic and pregnancy characteristics. Results: A total of 575 placentas were collected and examined, 287 with delivering provider examination request and 288 without request. The prevalence of AI, CI, and FVM was similar among the two groups. However, the prevalence of MVM was significantly higher in the requested placentas, particularly for high-grade MVM (15% vs. 8%, Conclusions: MVM was the only placental pathology seen more frequently in the delivering provider requested sample. Our RORs quantify differences in the associations, providing an estimate for the potential impact of selection bias. Research using a convenience sample of requested placentas may modestly overestimate associations, though the overall findings and interpretation of associations remain unchanged.
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.