↓ Skip to main content

Deconstructing the smoking-preeclampsia paradox through a counterfactual framework

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Epidemiology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Deconstructing the smoking-preeclampsia paradox through a counterfactual framework
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10654-016-0139-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miguel Angel Luque-Fernandez, Helga Zoega, Unnur Valdimarsdottir, Michelle A. Williams

Abstract

Although smoking during pregnancy may lead to many adverse outcomes, numerous studies have reported a paradoxical inverse association between maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and preeclampsia. Using a counterfactual framework we aimed to explore the structure of this paradox as being a consequence of selection bias. Using a case-control study nested in the Icelandic Birth Registry (1309 women), we show how this selection bias can be explored and corrected for. Cases were defined as any case of pregnancy induced hypertension or preeclampsia occurring after 20 weeks' gestation and controls as normotensive mothers who gave birth in the same year. First, we used directed acyclic graphs to illustrate the common bias structure. Second, we used classical logistic regression and mediation analytic methods for dichotomous outcomes to explore the structure of the bias. Lastly, we performed both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to estimate the amount of bias due to an uncontrolled confounder and corrected for it. The biased effect of smoking was estimated to reduce the odds of preeclampsia by 28 % (OR 0.72, 95 %CI 0.52, 0.99) and after stratification by gestational age at delivery (<37 vs. ≥37 gestation weeks) by 75 % (OR 0.25, 95 %CI 0.10, 0.68). In a mediation analysis, the natural indirect effect showed and OR > 1, revealing the structure of the paradox. The bias-adjusted estimation of the smoking effect on preeclampsia showed an OR of 1.22 (95 %CI 0.41, 6.53). The smoking-preeclampsia paradox appears to be an example of (1) selection bias most likely caused by studying cases prevalent at birth rather than all incident cases from conception in a pregnancy cohort, (2) omitting important confounders associated with both smoking and preeclampsia (preventing the outcome to develop) and (3) controlling for a collider (gestation weeks at delivery). Future studies need to consider these aspects when studying and interpreting the association between smoking and pregnancy outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Other 4 9%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Mathematics 4 9%
Psychology 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,138,842
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#730
of 1,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,965
of 300,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.