ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2025
Prevalence, risk factors, and adverse perinatal outcomes in Chinese women with preeclampsia: a large retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global prevalence of preeclampsia, eclampsia, and HELLP syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Natural ovulation versus programmed regimens before frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women: multicentre, randomised clinical trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Trial
- Impact of gestational weight gain on adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Trimester-specific gestational weight gain and adverse outcomes in GDM women: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Comparative maternal-fetal outcomes associated with different antihypertensive treatment strategies in preeclampsia: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreeclampsia (PE) is the primary cause of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. However, comprehensive studies on the related risk factors with PE and its effects on adverse perinatal outcomes are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence, risk factors, and adverse perinatal outcomes in Chinese women with preeclampsia.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, which enrolled 38,496 women without preeclampsia (non-PE) and 1130 women with PE. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the risk factors and adverse perinatal outcomes of PE.
resultsMultivariate logistic regression models showed that maternal age > 35 years, pp-BMI overweight/obesity, excessive gestational weight gain, multiparity, twin pregnancy, IVF, cesarean section history, times of abortion history ≥ 2, GDM, and ICP were significantly associated with the risk of PE (all P < 0.05). Women with PE in singleton pregnancies were associated with an increased risk of maternal outcomes of cesarean section, and preterm birth, and a higher risk of neonatal outcomes of stillbirth, low birth weight, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia, and neonatal unit admission, which were also observed in women with PE in twin pregnancies, except for stillbirth and neonatal asphyxia.
conclusionThis study identified the risk factors and associated adverse perinatal outcomes of PE, which providing comprehensive evidence for clinicians to manage women at risk of PE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.