The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevention of perinatal death and adverse perinatal outcome using low‐dose aspirin: a meta‐analysis
Abstract
Objective: To compare early vs late administration of low‐dose aspirin on the risk of perinatal death and adverse perinatal outcome. Methods: Databases were searched for keywords related to aspirin and pregnancy. Only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the prophylactic use of low‐dose aspirin (50–150 mg/day) during pregnancy were included. The primary outcome combined fetal and neonatal death. Pooled relative risks (RR) with their 95% CIs were compared according to gestational age at initiation of low‐dose aspirin (≤ 16 vs > 16 weeks of gestation). Results: Out of 8377 citations, 42 studies (27 222 women) were included. Inclusion criteria were risk factors for pre‐eclampsia, including: nulliparity, multiple pregnancy, chronic hypertension, cardiovascular or endocrine disease, prior gestational hypertension or fetal growth restriction, and/or abnormal uterine artery Doppler. When compared with controls, low‐dose aspirin started at ≤ 16 weeks' gestation compared with low‐dose aspirin started at >16 weeks' gestation was associated with a greater reduction of perinatal death (RR = 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19–0.92) vs 0.93 (95% CI, 0.73–1.19), P = 0.02), pre‐eclampsia (RR = 0.47 (95% CI, 0.36–0.62) vs 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61–0.99), P < 0.01), severe pre‐eclampsia (RR = 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08–0.41) vs 0.65 (95% CI, 0.40–1.07), P < 0.01), fetal growth restriction (RR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.33–0.64) vs 0.98 (95% CI, 0.88–1.08), P < 0.001) and preterm birth (RR = 0.35 (95% CI, 0.22–0.57) vs 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83–0.97), P < 0.001). Conclusion: Low‐dose aspirin initiated at ≤ 16 weeks of gestation is associated with a greater reduction of perinatal death and other adverse perinatal outcomes than when initiated at >16 weeks. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration
Higgins, J., Green, S. R., & Higgins, J. (2008) · Cited by 5,544
Cited by
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association
Tsao, C. W., Aday, A. W., Almarzooq, Z. I., Anderson, C. A. M., Arora, P., Avery, C. L., Baker-Smith, C. M., Beaton, A. Z., Boehme, A. K., Buxton, A. E., et al. (2023) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001123 · Cited by 8,300
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2022 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association
Tsao, C. W., Aday, A. W., Almarzooq, Z. I., Alonso, A., Beaton, A. Z., Bittencourt, M. S., Boehme, A. K., Buxton, A. E., Carson, A. P., Commodore-Mensah, Y., et al. (2022) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001052 · Cited by 5,987
Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association
Virani, S. S., Alonso, A., Aparicio, H. J., Benjamin, E. J., Bittencourt, M. S., Callaway, C. W., Carson, A. P., Chamberlain, A. M., Cheng, S., Delling, F. N., et al. (2021) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000950 · Cited by 5,784
Aspirin versus Placebo in Pregnancies at High Risk for Preterm Preeclampsia
Rolnik, D. L., Wright, D., Poon, L. C., O’Gorman, N., Syngelaki, A., de Paco Matallana, C., Akolekar, R., Cicero, S., Janga, D., Singh, M., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1704559 · Cited by 2,287
Self-citationBartsch, E., Medcalf, K. E., Park, A. L., & Ray, J. G. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i1753 · Cited by 996
Metadata
- Authors
- Roberge, S., Nicolaides, K. H., Demers, S., Villa, P., & Bujold, E.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-22
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 491-499
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W2137966156
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 82
- FWCI
- 48.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevention of perinatal death and adverse perinatal outcome using low‐dose aspirin: a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/uog.12421
- The paper
- Roberge, S., Nicolaides, K. H., Demers, S., Villa, P., & Bujold, E. (2013). Prevention of perinatal death and adverse perinatal outcome using low‐dose aspirin: a meta‐analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12421
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.