The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Obstetric cholestasis, outcome with active management: a series of 70 cases
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the nature and outcome of obstetric cholestasis in a United Kingdom population. DESIGN: Prospective analysis of clinical outcome in women diagnosed with obstetric cholestasis that is actively managed. SETTING: Antenatal population of three London hospitals between August 1999 and April 2001. POPULATION: Seventy women with obstetric cholestasis defined as abnormal liver function (one or more abnormality in gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, alanine amino-transferase, aspartate amino-transferase and total bile acids) in a pregnant woman with pruritus, in the absence of other pathology. METHODS: All women were interviewed weekly regarding their symptoms. All were actively managed according to a standardised protocol, which included early delivery before 38 weeks. Obstetric outcome was recorded. RESULTS: Seventy women of mean age 30 (6) years delivered 73 infants. The median gestation at onset of pruritus was 30 (range 4-39) weeks and at diagnosis of obstetric cholestasis was 33.7 (range 21-40.7) weeks. Asian women were more likely to be diagnosed with obstetric cholestasis. Pruritus was usually severe and generalised, and commonly worst on the palms and/or soles of the feet. There were no stillbirths or perinatal deaths. Twenty-five women required caesarean section (36%); only four (16%) were for fetal distress. Twelve women (17%) delivered before 37 weeks, of which eight (67%) were iatrogenic. Ten (14%) infants required admission to the special care baby unit of which four (40%) were ventilated. CONCLUSIONS: Policies of active management result in increased intervention and associated complications. This must be balanced against possible reductions in perinatal mortality.
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
Cited by
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of cholestatic liver diseases
European Association for the Study of the Liver (2009) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2009.04.009 · Cited by 1,729
Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy
Geenes, V., & Williamson, C. (2009) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.15.2049 · Cited by 675
Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy
Williamson, C., & Geenes, V. (2014) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000346 · Cited by 469
Pauli-Magnus, C., Lang, T., Meier, Y., Zodan-Marin, T., Jung, D., Breymann, C., Zimmermann, R., Kenngott, S., Beuers, U., Reichel, C., et al. (2004) · Pharmacogenetics · doi:10.1097/00008571-200402000-00003 · Cited by 273
Placental metabolomics for assessment of pregnancy complications: A systematic review
Mercer, G. V., & Cahill, L. S. (2026) · Molecular Omics · doi:10.1093/molecular-omics/aaiag015 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Kenyon, A.
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 282-288
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- OpenAlex
- W1976347624
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.33
- 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: Obstetric cholestasis, outcome with active management: a series of 70 cases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-0328(02)01368-x
- The paper
- Kenyon, A. (2002). Obstetric cholestasis, outcome with active management: a series of 70 cases. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-0328(02)01368-x
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.