ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Disparities in low-dose aspirin prescription among patients at risk for preeclampsia.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Low-dose aspirin (LDA) reduces preeclampsia risk, yet prescribing rates among eligible pregnant patients remain low. This study aims to determine whether there are disparities in LDA prescription to eligible patients based on race/ethnicity, primary language, or insurance after implementation of a standardized electronic health record (EHR) preeclampsia risk screening tool. Study design: This retrospective cohort study included all patients ≥ age 18 with births at a single academic center from September 2022 to July 2025 who had 1 high or ≥2 moderate preeclampsia risk factors. The primary outcome was rate of LDA recommendation/prescription, determined by recommendation documentation in the risk screening tool or prescription in the EHR medication log. Data were extracted from Epic Clinical Data Warehouse. Chi-square or Results: Of 5737 LDA-eligible patients, 3995 (69.6%) were recommended/prescribed LDA and 1742 (30.4%) were not. Patients recommended/prescribed LDA were more likely to be older, multiparous, English speaking, and privately insured and/or have pregestational diabetes or chronic hypertension, as well as high-risk factors for preeclampsia ( Conclusions: After implementation of a standardized preeclmapsia risk screening tool, LDA was more often prescribed to eligible Black patients than White, likely reflecting ACOG's inclusion of Black race as a proxy for racism as a preeclmapsia risk factor. However, LDA was less often prescribed to publicly insured or non-English speaking patients, which highlights an opportunity for quality and equity improvement.
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.