4.6 Article

A description of the methods of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be (nuMoM2b)

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.019

Keywords

adverse pregnancy outcome; cohort study; methods; nulliparous; prediction; pregnancy; psychosocial

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [U10 HD063036, U10 HD063072, U10 HD063047, U10 HD063037, U10 HD063041, U10 HD063020, U10 HD063046, U10 HD063048, U10 HD063053]
  2. Clinical and Translational Science Institutes [UL1TR001108, UL1TR000153]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be is to determine maternal characteristics, which include genetic, physiologic response to pregnancy, and environmental factors that predict adverse pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Nulliparous women in the first trimester of pregnancy were recruited into an observational cohort study. Participants were seen at 3 study visits during pregnancy and again at delivery. We collected data from in-clinic interviews, take-home surveys, clinical measurements, ultrasound studies, and chart abstractions. Maternal biospecimens (serum, plasma, urine, cervicovaginal fluid) at antepartum study visits and delivery specimens (placenta, umbilical cord, cord blood) were collected, processed, and stored. The primary outcome of the study was defined as pregnancy ending at <37+0 weeks' gestation. Key study hypotheses involve adverse pregnancy outcomes of spontaneous preterm birth, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction. RESULTS: We recruited 10,037 women to the study. Basic characteristics of the cohort at screening are reported. CONCLUSION: The Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be cohort study methods and procedures can help investigators when they plan future projects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available