Cited by 127Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchReproductive System and PregnancyPregnancy and preeclampsia studies

Do low-risk pregnant women with antiphospholipid antibodies need to be treated?

Cowchock, Susan, Reece, E.Albert·1997·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

We identified 19 women who had persistently positive test results for antiphospholipid antibodies who were considered to be at low risk because they had none of the associated signs or symptoms of the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. They had had no (10/19, 53%) or just one prior spontaneous abortion and did not have a history of thrombosis or thrombocytopenia. Many (8/19, 42%) had had a prior uncomplicated pregnancy ending in a live birth. These women were randomly assigned to receive low-dose aspirin (81 mg daily) or usual care. There were few obstetric complications recorded in either treatment group. One woman in the aspirin group had a fetal death, and one in the usual care group had a low-birth-weight infant. The frequency of complications was so low that > 600 such women would need to be entered into a randomized trial to evaluate whether low-dose aspirin would be beneficial treatment during a pregnancy. We concluded that treatment of pregnant women with antiphospholipid antibodies who are otherwise at low risk cannot be justified on the basis of the available evidence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70409-5

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Data from one placebo-controlled RCT in six women with SLE and three low-quality studies in women without SLE found no difference in live birth prevalence with LDA use.

    “Data from one placebo-controlled RCT of LDA in six women with SLE42 and data from three low-quality studies (two RCTs, one retrospective cohort)43–45 of women without SLE found no difference in the prevalence of live births with use of LDA.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cowchock, S., & Reece, E. A.
Affiliations
Thomas Jefferson University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-05
Volume
176
Issue
5
Pages
1099-1100
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2076127201
Cited by
127
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (080-02154)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Keywords
antiphospholipid antibodies, antiphospholipid syndrome, low-risk pregnancy, low-dose aspirin, thromboprophylaxis, miscarriage, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, fetal death, low birth weight
MeSH terms
Aspirin, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Risk Factors, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid

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