Cited by 74Air Quality and Health ImpactsIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposurePregnancy and Medication Impact

Acute effects of air pollutants on spontaneous pregnancy loss: a case-crossover study

Open access
Leiser, Claire L., Hanson, Heidi A., Sawyer, Kara, Steenblik, Jacob, Al-Dulaimi, Ragheed, Madsen, Troy, Gibbins, Karen, Hotaling, James M. +3 more·2019·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

Objective To investigate the relationship between acute exposure to air pollutants and spontaneous pregnancy loss.Design Case-crossover study from 2007 to 2015.Setting An academic emergency department in the Wasatch Front area of Utah.Patient(s) A total of 1,398 women who experienced spontaneous pregnancy loss events.Intervention(s) None.Main outcome measure(s) Odds of spontaneous pregnancy loss.Result(s) We found that a 10-ppb increase in 7-day average levels of nitrogen dioxide was associated with a 16% increase in the odds of spontaneous pregnancy loss (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.33; P=.04). A 10-μg/m 3 increase in 3-day and 7-day averages of fine particulate matter were associated with increased risk of spontaneous pregnancy loss, but the associations did not reach statistical significance (OR 3-day average = 1.09; 95% CI 0.99-1.20; P=.05) (OR 7-day average = 1.11; 95% CI 0.99-1.24; P=.06). We found no evidence of increased risk for any other metrics of nitrogen dioxide or fine particulate matter or any metric for ozone.Conclusions We found that short-term exposure to elevated levels of air pollutants was associated with higher risk for spontaneous pregnancy loss.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.028

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An important determinant of risk of miscarriage is the gestational age of a pregnancy.

    “An important determinant of risk of miscarriage is the gestational age of a pregnancy.”

    From Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss (2021) · cites this paper as [80]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the study could not determine exact gestational age or test whether the effect of air pollution differed by gestational age. It names maternal age as a risk factor, but does not say whether gestational age itself determines miscarriage risk (searched: gestational age, miscarriage risk, gestational week). (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The risk of pregnancy loss decreases with advancing gestational age.

    “The risk of pregnancy loss decreases with advancing gestational age. 79-82”

    From Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss (2021) · cites this paper as [80]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the authors could not determine exact gestational age or test whether effects differed by gestational age. The Results report associations between air pollutants and pregnancy loss, but not whether loss risk decreases as pregnancy advances. Searches for gestational age, gestational week, and declining risk found no passage making that claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leiser, C. L., Hanson, H. A., Sawyer, K., Steenblik, J., Al-Dulaimi, R., Madsen, T., Gibbins, K., Hotaling, J. M., Ibrahim, Y. O., VanDerslice, J. A., & Fuller, M.
Affiliations
  • Huntsman Cancer Institute (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Hurley Medical Center (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Leiser, Claire L.
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
111
Issue
2
Pages
341-347
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2902054112
Cited by
74
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1K12HD085852-01)
  • University of Utah
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
spontaneous pregnancy loss, air pollution, nitrogen dioxide, PM2.5, ozone, short-term exposure, maternal health, environmental exposure
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adolescent, Adult, Air Pollutants, Child, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Nitrogen Dioxide, Particle Size, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Utah, Case-Control Studies, Risk Assessment, Cross-Over Studies, Inhalation Exposure, Particulate Matter, Young Adult

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