Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Pregestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Results: A Mendelian Randomization Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Pregestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Results: A Mendelian Randomization Study
Do you wish to request the book?
Pregestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Results: A Mendelian Randomization Study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Pregestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Results: A Mendelian Randomization Study
2025
Overview
Background: Hyperglycemia in pregnancy is believed to be associated with negative pregnancy outcomes. However, establishing a causal connection between diabetes mellitus (DM) and adverse pregnancy results is challenging due to the limitations inherent in traditional observational studies. Methods: Our study used a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) technique to examine the possible influence of pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Summary-level data were obtained from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of European ancestry and FinnGen biobank. The primary analysis employed the random-effects multiplicative inverse variance weighted (IVW) technique to appraise causal relationships between PGDM and adverse outcomes. Heterogeneity and pleiotropy were assessed using Cochran’s Q statistic, Rucker’s Q statistic, and the I² statistic. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using MR-Egger and weighted median methods. Additionally, outlier detection techniques, including MR-PRESSO and RadialMR, were applied. Results: The results from the IVW method indicated no significant causal association between PGDM and stillbirth (SB) (OR (SE)=0.99 (0.001); P value=0.992), miscarriage (MIS) (OR (SE)=0.97 (0.016); P value=0.125), and preterm birth (PTB) (OR (SE)=1.072 (0.028); P value=0.014). Pleiotropy and heterogeneity tests revealed no evidence of pleiotropy for SB, MIS, and PTB (MR–Egger intercept P value=0.296, 0.525, and 0.532, respectively), with no observed heterogeneity for SB, MIS, and PTB (Q- P values of IVW were 0.929, 0.999, and 0.069, and MR–Egger were 0.931, 0.999, and 0.065, respectively). Conclusion: Our findings indicate that there is no direct causal link between PGDM and the likelihood of MIS, SB, and PTB.
