Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Population-based study of fertility in women with HIV-1 infection in Uganda

Open access
Gray, Ronald H, Wawer, Maria J, Serwadda, David, Sewankambo, Nelson, Li, Chuanjun, Wabwire-Mangen, Frederick, Paxton, Lynn, Kiwanuka, Noah, Kigozi, Godfrey, Konde-Lule, Joseph, Quinn, Thomas C, Gaydos, Charlotte A, McNairn, Denise·1998·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To assess the effects of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections on pregnancy, we undertook cross-sectional and prospective studies of a rural population in Rakai district, Uganda. METHODS: 4813 sexually active women aged 15-49 years were surveyed to find out the prevalence of pregnancy by interview and selective urinary human chorionic gonadotropin tests. The incidence of recognised conception and frequency of pregnancy loss were assessed by follow-up. Samples were taken to test for HIV-1 infection, syphilis, and other sexually transmitted diseases. FINDINGS: At time of survey 757 (21.4%) of 3544 women without HIV-1 infection or syphilis were pregnant, compared with 46 (14.6%) of 316 HIV-1-negative women with active syphilis, 117 (14.2%) of 823 HIV-1-positive women with no concurrent syphilis, and 11 (8.5%) of 130 women with both syphilis and HIV-1 infection. The multivariate adjusted odds ratio of pregnancy in HIV-1-infected women was 0.45 (95% CI 0.35-0.57); the odds of pregnancy were low both in HIV-1-infected women without symptoms (0.49 [0.39-0.62]) and in women with symptoms of HIV-1-associated disease (0.23 [0.11-0.48]). In women with concurrent HIV-1 infection and syphilis the odds ratio was 0.28 (0.14-0.55). The incidence rate of recognised pregnancy during the prospective follow-up study was lower in HIV-1-positive than in HIV-1-negative women (23.5 vs 30.1 per 100 woman-years; adjusted risk ratio 0.73 [0.57-0.93]). Rates of pregnancy loss were higher among HIV-1-infected than uninfected women (18.5 vs 12.2%; odds ratio 1.50 [1.01-2.27]). The prevalence of HIV-1 infection was significantly lower in pregnant than in non-pregnant women (13.9 vs 21.3%). INTERPRETATION: Pregnancy prevalence is greatly reduced in HIV-1-infected women, owing to lower rates of conception and increased rates of pregnancy loss. HIV-1 surveillance confined to pregnant women underestimates the magnitude of the HIV-1 epidemic in the general population.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)09381-1

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 294

Metadata

Authors
Gray, R. H., Wawer, M. J., Serwadda, D., Sewankambo, N., Li, C., Wabwire-Mangen, F., Paxton, L., Kiwanuka, N., Kigozi, G., Konde-Lule, J., Quinn, T. C., Gaydos, C. A., & McNairn, D.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-01
Volume
351
Issue
9096
Pages
98-103
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2104005784
Cited by
294
References
20
FWCI
14.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Population-based study of fertility in women with HIV-1 infection in Uganda. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)09381-1
The paper
Gray, R. H., Wawer, M. J., Serwadda, D., Sewankambo, N., Li, C., Wabwire-Mangen, F., Paxton, L., Kiwanuka, N., Kigozi, G., Konde-Lule, J., Quinn, T. C., Gaydos, C. A., & McNairn, D. (1998). Population-based study of fertility in women with HIV-1 infection in Uganda. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)09381-1

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.