Fetal loss and long-term maternal morbidity and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests common pathways between pregnancy losses and subsequent long-term maternal morbidity, rendering pregnancy complications an early chronic disease marker. There is a plethora of studies exploring associations between miscarriage and stillbirth with long-term adverse maternal health; however, these data are inconclusive. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BNI, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library with relevant keywords and MeSH terms from inception to June 2023 (no language restrictions). We included studies exploring associations between stillbirth or miscarriage and incidence of cardiovascular, malignancy, mental health, other morbidities, and all-cause mortality in women without previous pregnancy loss. Studies reporting short-term morbidity (within a year of loss), case reports, letters, and animal studies were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and publication bias with funnel plots. Subgroup analysis explored the effect of recurrent losses on adverse outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using an inverse variance random effects model and results are reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals (PIs) by combining the most adjusted RR, odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) under the rare outcome assumption. We included 56 observational studies, including 45 in meta-analysis. There were 1,119,815 women who experienced pregnancy loss of whom 951,258 had a miscarriage and 168,557 stillbirth, compared with 11,965,574 women without previous loss. Women with a history of stillbirth had a greater risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) RR 1.56, 95% CI [1.30, 1.88]; p < 0.001, 95% PI [0.49 to 5.15]), cerebrovascular (RR 1.71, 95% CI [1.44, 2.03], p < 0.001, 95% PI [1.92, 2.42]), and any circulatory/cardiovascular disease (RR 1.86, 95% CI [1.01, 3.45], p = 0.05, 95% PI [0.74, 4.10]) compared with women without pregnancy loss. There was no evidence of increased risk of cardiovascular disease (IHD: RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.98, 1.27], 95% PI [0.46, 2.76] or cerebrovascular: RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.85, 1.21]) in women experiencing a miscarriage. Only women with a previous stillbirth were more likely to develop type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (RR: 1.16, 95% CI [1.07 to 2.26]; p < 0.001, 95% PI [1.05, 1.35]). Women with a stillbirth history had an increased risk of developing renal morbidities (RR 1.97, 95% CI [1.51, 2.57], p < 0.001, 95% [1.06, 4.72]) compared with controls. Women with a history of stillbirth had lower risk of breast cancer (RR: 0.80, 95% CI [0.67, 0.96], p-0.02, 95% PI [0.72, 0.93]). There was no evidence of altered risk of other malignancies in women experiencing pregnancy loss compared to controls. There was no evidence of long-term mental illness risk in women with previous pregnancy losses (stillbirth: RR 1.90, 95% CI [0.93, 3.88], 95% PI [0.34, 9.51], miscarriage: RR 1.78, 95% CI [0.88, 3.63], 95% PI [1.13, 4.16]). The main limitations include the potential for confounding due to use of aggregated data with variable degrees of adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that women with a history of stillbirth have a greater risk of future cardiovascular disease, T2DM, and renal morbidities. Women experiencing miscarriages, single or multiple, do not seem to have an altered risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".