Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:There is an association between recreational marijuana use in pregnancy and legalization. As more states legalize marijuana, its use in pregnancy may increase. The objective of this study was to evaluate pregnant women's knowledge and opinions about marijuana use, potential risks, and legalization. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A cross-sectional survey of pregnant women at a regional perinatal center in New Jersey was performed from January-December 2019. Pregnant subjects were invited to complete a voluntary, anonymous 23-question survey about marijuana use in pregnancy, potential risks, and legalization. Subjects were excluded if they could not read in English or Spanish. Survey questions were based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree). Likelihood of agreeing or disagreeing with potential risks, with neutral responses as the reference, were estimated based on the relative risk (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]). Associations were examined with prior tobacco/marijuana use and education level. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:During the study period, approximately 1133 consecutive patients were approached and 843 completed the study (74.4% response rate). The majority of participants were English-speaking, college educated, and employed. 204 (25.2%) reported prior marijuana use and 36 (4.5%) reported marijuana use during pregnancy. Overall, pregnant women had poor knowledge about potential risks of marijuana use in pregnancy. Although 234 (29.0%) patients were opposed to legalization, more than 90% of pregnant subjects indicated that they would be more likely to use marijuana in pregnancy if it were legalized. Associations of marijuana risks by prior tobacco use showed that nonsmokers had more awareness about risks. Nonsmokers had higher likelihood of agreeing that marijuana use may be harmful to a pregnancy (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.12-1.76), may hurt the growth of a baby (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.74), may cause preterm birth (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00-1.40), and may hurt a child's ability to learn (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95-1.51). Similar trends were observed for subjects who reported no prior marijuana use and for subjects with more than high school education. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The majority of surveyed pregnant women demonstrated poor knowledge about the possible risks of marijuana in pregnancy and indicated that they would be more likely to use marijuana in pregnancy if it were legalized. As the use of marijuana increases, providers should focus on educating their patients about potential risks associated with marijuana use in pregnancy while additional research is needed to clarify associated risks.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Given slowing secular declines and persistent racial disparities, stillbirth remains a major health burden in the US. We investigate changes in stillbirth rates overall and for Black and White women, and determine how maternal age, delivery year (period), and birth year (cohort) have shaped trends. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We designed a sequential time-series analysis utilising the 1980 to 2020 US vital records data of live births and stillbirths at ≥24 weeks gestation. Stillbirth rates overall and among Black and White women were examined. We undertook an age-period-cohort analysis to evaluate temporal changes in stillbirth trends. FINDINGS/UNASSIGNED:Of 157,192,032 live births and 710,832 stillbirths between 1980 and 2020, stillbirth rates per 1000 births declined from 10.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.5, 10.7) in 1980 to 5.8 (95% CI 5.7, 5.8) in 2020. Stillbirth rates declined from 9.2 to 5.0 per 1000 births among White women (rate ratio [RR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.53, 0.55), and from 17.4 to 10.1 per 1000 births among Black women (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.55, 0.59). Black women experienced persistent two-fold higher rates compared to White women (2.01, 95% CI 1.97, 2.05 in 2020). Stillbirth rates declined until 2005, increased from 2005 to the mid-2010s and plateaued thereafter. Strong cohort effects contributed to declining rates in earlier cohorts (1930-1955) and increasing rates among women born after 1980. INTERPRETATION/UNASSIGNED:Age, period, and birth cohorts greatly influenced US stillbirth rates over the last forty years. The decline in stillbirth rate was evident between 1980 and 2005, however subsequent declines have been minimal, reflecting no further gains for cohorts of women born in 1955-1980 and stagnation of period effects starting in 2005. A significant racial disparity persisted with a two-fold excess in stillbirth rates for Black compared to White women, underscoring the need for targeted health and social policies to address disparities. FUNDING/UNASSIGNED:None.

OBJECTIVE:This sequential, prospective meta-analysis sought to identify risk factors among pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19 for adverse outcomes related to disease severity, maternal morbidities, neonatal mortality and morbidity, and adverse birth outcomes. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:We prospectively invited study investigators to join the sequential, prospective meta-analysis via professional research networks beginning in March 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA/METHODS:Eligible studies included those recruiting at least 25 consecutive cases of COVID-19 in pregnancy within a defined catchment area. METHODS:We included individual patient data from 21 participating studies. Data quality was assessed, and harmonized variables for risk factors and outcomes were constructed. Duplicate cases were removed. Pooled estimates for the absolute and relative risk of adverse outcomes comparing those with and without each risk factor were generated using a 2-stage meta-analysis. RESULTS:We collected data from 33 countries and territories, including 21,977 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy or postpartum. We found that women with comorbidities (preexisting diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease) vs those without were at higher risk for COVID-19 severity and adverse pregnancy outcomes (fetal death, preterm birth, low birthweight). Participants with COVID-19 and HIV were 1.74 times (95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.71) more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit. Pregnant women who were underweight before pregnancy were at higher risk of intensive care unit admission (relative risk, 5.53; 95% confidence interval, 2.27-13.44), ventilation (relative risk, 9.36; 95% confidence interval, 3.87-22.63), and pregnancy-related death (relative risk, 14.10; 95% confidence interval, 2.83-70.36). Prepregnancy obesity was also a risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes including intensive care unit admission (relative risk, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.60), ventilation (relative risk, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-3.51), any critical care (relative risk, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.77), and pneumonia (relative risk, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.33). Anemic pregnant women with COVID-19 also had increased risk of intensive care unit admission (relative risk, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.11) and death (relative risk, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-4.81). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We found that pregnant women with comorbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease were at increased risk for severe COVID-19-related outcomes, maternal morbidities, and adverse birth outcomes. We also identified several less commonly known risk factors, including HIV infection, prepregnancy underweight, and anemia. Although pregnant women are already considered a high-risk population, special priority for prevention and treatment should be given to pregnant women with these additional risk factors.

BACKGROUND:Whether research engagement on social media and other public platforms results in increased citations in obstetrics and gynecology remains uncertain. The Altmetric Attention Score is a metric of research influence based on mentions on social media and public platforms, such as newsfeeds and Wikipedia. The correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores, absolute citation rates, and the Relative Citation Ratio (a novel metric of research engagement also based on citation rates) in obstetrics and gynecology research is uncertain. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score, absolute citation rate, and Relative Citation Ratio for articles published in obstetrics and gynecology journals from 2004 to 2019. Our second objective was to identify, characterize, and compare the 100 articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores, the 100 most-cited articles, and the 100 articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios. STUDY DESIGN:We performed a cross-sectional altmetric and bibliometric study of all obstetrics and gynecology articles indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection from 2004 to 2019. Articles were included if they were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals according to InCites Journal Citation Reports indexing. Citation data, including citation numbers and Relative Citation Ratios, were downloaded on March 20, 2021 and merged with altmetric data from the Altmetric Explorer on the basis of each article's unique PubMed identification number. We assessed correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores and number of citations and Altmetric Attention Scores and Relative Citation Ratios by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient. The 100 articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores, the 100 most-cited articles, and the 100 articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios were characterized and compared using means (standard deviations) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals). RESULTS:There were 156,592 articles published in 82 obstetrics and gynecology journals and indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection between 2004 and 2019. The correlation coefficient was 0.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.19) for Altmetric Attention Scores vs number of citations and 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.11) for Altmetric Attention Scores vs Relative Citation Ratios. There was no overlap among the 100 articles on the highest Altmetric Attention Score list and the 100 most-cited list, and there was minimal overlap among the 100 articles on the highest Altmetric Attention Score list and the 100 highest Relative Citation Ratio list (98 unique articles on each list). Articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores generated substantially more engagement on social media and other public platforms than most-cited articles (mean Altmetric Attention Score, 763.1 [standard deviation, 520.8] vs 49.9 [standard deviation, 81.6]; mean difference, -713.2 [95% confidence interval, -819.9 to -606.6]) and highest Relative Citation Ratio articles (mean, 116.2 [standard deviation, 415.9]; mean difference, -661.5 [95% confidence interval, -746.2 to -576.9]). In contrast, the articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores generated far fewer citations than most-cited articles (mean, 39.7 [standard deviation, 47.6] vs 541.8 [standard deviation, 312.8]; mean difference, 502.0 [95% confidence interval, 439.0-565.0]) and highest Relative Citation Ratio articles (mean, 458.9 [standard deviation, 363.5]; mean difference, 427.7 [95% confidence interval, 353.8-501.6]). Nearly half of articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores were basic/translational studies, often about menopause and environmental factors impacting fertility, whereas most-cited articles and articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios were more likely to be reviews and consensus statements, respectively, often about placentation and polycystic ovary syndrome, respectively. Articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores were more likely to be published as open-access. CONCLUSION:There seems to be weak short-term correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores and citation rates. Further study is warranted to ascertain whether there may be long-term correlation between alternative metrics and citation rates in obstetrics and gynecology.

RESEARCH QUESTION:What are the most influential articles in reproductive biology journals from 1980 to 2019 according to Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), number of citations and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)? DESIGN:Cross-sectional study of reproductive biology articles indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection from 1980 to 2019. Data were downloaded on 20 May 2021. The 100 articles with highest AAS, RCR and number of citations were analysed. RESULTS:Twenty-one reproductive biology journals were identified, including 120,069 articles published from 1980 to 2019. In total 227 reproductive biology classics were identified due to some overlap between the three lists. Compared with the 100 articles with the highest AAS (after excluding articles featured on both lists), the 100 top-cited articles were older (2014 versus 2001, mean difference [95% confidence interval] 13.5 [11.5, 15.5]), less likely to be open access (64% versus 85%), more likely to be reviews (42% versus 12%) and less likely to be observational studies (9% versus 51%) and randomized clinical trials (0% versus 5%). These same trends were observed in analyses comparing the 100 articles with highest AAS to the 100 articles with highest RCR. The most common topic was assisted reproduction, but prominent topics included infertility for top AAS articles, reproductive technology in animals for top-cited articles, and polycystic ovary syndrome for top RCR articles. CONCLUSIONS:Formerly, influential articles in reproductive biology journals were evaluated by absolute citation rates and subject to limitations of conventional bibliometric analysis. This is the first comprehensive study to use altmetrics and citation-based metrics to identify reproductive biology classics.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine seeks to ensure excellence in obstetrical outcomes for all people who desire or experience pregnancy, including people with diverse sexual and gender identities. The Society commits to the use of practices in clinical and research settings that affirm the sexual and gender identities of all people, encourages the development of undergraduate and graduate medical education curricula and training programs that address diverse pathways to pregnancy and support clinicians with diverse sexual and gender identities, and promotes the use of inclusive language that is accurate and, when possible, specific.