Cited by 224Maternal and fetal healthcareBlood transfusion and managementMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Risk factors for placenta accreta: a large prospective cohort

Open access
Eller, Alexandra, Bardsley, Tyler, Greene, Tom, Varner, Michael, Silver, Robert, Bowman, Zachary·2013·American Journal of Perinatology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Placenta previa and prior cesarean delivery are known risk factors for placenta accreta. However, other risk factors have not been identified. Our objective was to examine risk factors for accreta using data collected prospectively in a large multicenter cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of women with accreta compared to those without accreta in a large multicenter cesarean delivery cohort. Potential accreta risk factors were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: In this study, 196 of 73,257 (0.27%) cesarean deliveries were complicated by accreta. As expected, women with increasing numbers of prior cesareans were more likely to have an accreta (p < 0.001), as were women with previa (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 34.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4-54.3). We also considered only patients with previa and examined the following variables: maternal demographics, prior cesareans, interval between deliveries, parity, body mass index, tobacco use, and coexisting hypertension or diabetes. In this model, patients with previa and two or three prior cesarean deliveries had an adjusted OR for accreta of 4.9 (95% CI, 1.7-14.3) or 7.7 (95% CI, 2.4-24.9), respectively. However, no other variables were significantly associated with accreta. CONCLUSION: Patients with previa have increased risk for accreta that increases with the number of prior cesarean deliveries. However, no other maternal characteristics were associated with accreta.

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 · 10.1055/s-0033-1361833

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • In a 2015 observational study in Sweden and Norway, 70% of PAS cases were not diagnosed antepartum.

    “In a 2015 observational study in Sweden and Norway, researchers reported that 70% of PAS cases were not diagnosed antepartum.”

    From Machine Learning in Maternity: Early Diagnosis of Placenta Accreta Spectrum (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Methods describe an analysis of a Cesarean Registry study conducted from 1999 through 2002, contrary to the attribution to a 2015 study. The Results report 196 placenta accreta cases but do not report that 70% were undiagnosed antepartum. Searches for the 70% figure and for Sweden, Norway, and antepartum diagnosis found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a 2014 study in Utah, United States, up to one-third of PAS cases were not diagnosed during antepartum.

    “Similarly, a 2014 study in Utah, United States, discovered that up to one-third of cases are not diagnosed during antepartum [12,13].”

    From Machine Learning in Maternity: Early Diagnosis of Placenta Accreta Spectrum (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Results report 196 placenta accreta cases but do not say when they were diagnosed. The Methods describe a multicenter registry, not a Utah-specific cohort. Searches for antepartum, prenatal, and predelivery diagnosis found no one-third estimate in the paper's Results or Discussion. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    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
Eller, A., Bardsley, T., Greene, T., Varner, M., Silver, R., & Bowman, Z.
Affiliations
  • Intermountain Healthcare (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Bowman, Zachary
Venue
American Journal of Perinatology
Published
2013-12-12
Volume
31
Issue
09
Pages
799-804
ISSN
  • 0735-1631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-8785
OpenAlex
W2327089839
Cited by
224
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Perinatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Blood transfusion and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
placenta accreta, placenta previa, previous cesarean section, risk factors, cesarean section complications, parity, maternal obesity, tobacco use, hypertension, diabetes mellitus
MeSH terms
Adult, Cesarean Section, Female, Humans, Placenta Accreta, Placenta Previa, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, United States, 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