Objective To develop a practical evidence based list of clinical risk factors that can be assessed by a clinician at ≤16 weeks’ gestation to estimate a woman’s risk of pre-eclampsia.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.Data sources PubMed and Embase databases, 2000-15.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cohort studies with ≥1000 participants that evaluated the risk of pre-eclampsia in relation to a common and generally accepted clinical risk factor assessed at ≤16 weeks’ gestation.Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data from included studies. A pooled event rate and pooled relative risk for pre-eclampsia were calculated for each of 14 risk factors.Results There were 25 356 688 pregnancies among 92 studies. The pooled relative risk for each risk factor significantly exceeded 1.0, except for prior intrauterine growth restriction. Women with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome had the highest pooled rate of pre-eclampsia (17.3%, 95% confidence interval 6.8% to 31.4%). Those with prior pre-eclampsia had the greatest pooled relative risk (8.4, 7.1 to 9.9). Chronic hypertension ranked second, both in terms of its pooled rate (16.0%, 12.6% to 19.7%) and pooled relative risk (5.1, 4.0 to 6.5) of pre-eclampsia. Pregestational diabetes (pooled rate 11.0%, 8.4% to 13.8%; pooled relative risk 3.7, 3.1 to 4.3), prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) >30 (7.1%, 6.1% to 8.2%; 2.8, 2.6 to 3.1), and use of assisted reproductive technology (6.2%, 4.7% to 7.9%; 1.8, 1.6 to 2.1) were other prominent risk factors.Conclusions There are several practical clinical risk factors that, either alone or in combination, might identify women in early pregnancy who are at “high risk” of pre-eclampsia. These data can inform the generation of a clinical prediction model for pre-eclampsia and the use of aspirin prophylaxis in pregnancy.

BackgroundThe emerging adoption of the electronic medical record (EMR) in primary care enables clinicians and researchers to efficiently examine epidemiological trends in child health, including infant feeding practices.MethodsWe completed a population-based retrospective cohort study of 8815 singleton infants born at term in Ontario, Canada, April 2002 to March 2013. Newborn records were linked to the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD™), which uses patient-level information from participating family practice EMRs across Ontario. We assessed exclusive breastfeeding patterns using an automated electronic search algorithm, with manual review of EMRs when the latter was not possible. We examined the rate of breastfeeding at visits corresponding to 2, 4 and 6 months of age, as well as sociodemographic factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding.ResultsOf the 8815 newborns, 1044 (11.8%) lacked breastfeeding information in their EMR. Rates of exclusive breastfeeding were 39.5% at 2 months, 32.4% at 4 months and 25.1% at 6 months. At age 6 months, exclusive breastfeeding rates were highest among mothers aged ≥40 vs. < 20 years (rate ratio [RR] 2.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62–3.68), urban vs. rural residence (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22–1.50), and highest vs. lowest income quintile (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02–1.36). Overall, immigrants had similar rates of exclusive breastfeeding as non-immigrants; yet, by age 6 months, among those residing in the lowest income quintile, immigrants were more likely to exclusively breastfeed than their non-immigrant counterparts (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12–1.83).ConclusionsWe efficiently determined rates and factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding using data from a large EMR database.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-017-1633-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPreeclampsia (PE) increases maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Based on a multitude of data from randomized clinical trials, clinical practice guidelines endorse using ASA to prevent PE in women who are “at risk.” However, data are lacking about the level of absolute risk to warrant starting ASA prophylaxis.Methods and FindingsWe present two approaches for objectively determining the minimum absolute risk for PE at which ASA prophylaxis is justified. The first is a new approach—the minimum control event rate (CERmin). The second approach uses a pre-existing concept—the minimum event rate for treatment (MERT). Here we show how the CERmin is derived, and then use the CERmin and the MERT to guide us to a reasonable risk threshold for starting a woman on ASA prophylaxis against PE based on clinical risk assessment. We suggest that eligible women need not be at “high risk” for preeclampsia to warrant ASA, but rather at some modestly elevated absolute risk of 6–10%.ConclusionsGiven its very low cost, its widespread availability, ease of administration and its safety profile, ASA is a highly attractive agent for the prevention of maternal and perinatal morbidity worldwide.

Maternal and paternal country of origin influences stillbirth risk. Foreign-born couples, especially those originating from a country with a high stillbirth rate, are at greater risk. Attention should focus on identifying genetic and environmental risk factors for stillbirth among specific immigrant groups, including developing prevention strategies for high-risk couples.

(BMJ. 2016;353:i1753) Earlier studies have reported the effectiveness of aspirin in preventing preeclampsia in women considered to be at moderate to high risk of developing this disorder. This current study was a meta-analysis of cohort studies examining risk factors for preeclampsia with the goal of estimating early in pregnancy (≤16 wk gestation) a woman’s risk of developing preeclampsia based on the presence of absence of various risk factors. Three practical estimates were generated: the absolute risk of developing preeclampsia in the presence or absence of a given risk factor; the relative risk in the presence or absence of a given risk factor, and the population attributable fraction (PAF) for preeclampsia in relation to each risk factor. On the basis of their analysis, the authors aimed to provide a list of risk factors that could be used to identify those women at high risk for developing preeclampsia.