4.7 Article

Prevalence and risk factors of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in a Chinese population

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73378-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81471467]
  2. National College Students' Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program [201910366007]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation of Reserve Candidates for Anhui Provincial Academic and Technological Leaders [2018H204]
  4. Key Projects of Anhui Provincial Natural Science Research in Colleges and Universities [KJ2019A0224]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies on the risk factors for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) in a population-based cohort are lacking. We assess the prevalence and risk factors of ICP in a Chinese population. In this study, a cohort study was conducted that included 12,200 eligible pregnant women. The overall incidence of ICP in this cohort was 6.06%. With increasing maternal age, the incidence of ICP decreased in women younger than 30 years of age but increased in those older than 30. With increasing pre-pregnancy BMI, the incidence of ICP decreased if the pre-pregnancy BMI was less than 23 kg/m(2) but increased if it was 23 kg/m(2) or higher. Further analysis showed that the risk of ICP increased when maternal age was <25 years (Adjusted RR 2.01; 95% CI 1.64-2.47) or >= 35 years (Adjusted RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.02-1.76). Furthermore, an increased risk of ICP was associated with pre-pregnancy underweight (adjusted RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.04-1.56), inadequate gestational weight gain (GWG) (adjusted RR 1.58; 95% CI 1.28-1.96), lower maternal education (adjusted RR 2.96; 95% CI 2.35-3.74), multiparity (adjusted RR 1.54; 95% CI 1.23-1.93), and twin/multiple pregnancies (adjusted RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.25-3.58). Maternal age (<25 or >= 35 years), underweight, inadequate GWG, lower maternal education, multiparity, and twin/multiple pregnancies were identified as risk factors of ICP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据