Skip to main content
Download PDF

Analysis of risk factors related to extremely and very preterm birth: a retrospective study

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 22, Article number: 818 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background:

Preterm birth is one of the main causes of perinatal morbidity and mortality and imposes a heavy burden on families and society. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors and analyze birth conditions and complications of newborns born at < 32 gestational weeks for extremely preterm (EP) and very preterm (VP) birth in the clinic to further extend the gestational period.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective cohort study and collected data from 1598 pregnant women and 1660 premature newborns (excluding 229 premature babies who died due to severe illness and abandonment) admitted to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital Affiliated with Nanjing Medical University in China from 2016 to 2020. We compared women’s and newborns’ characteristics by t-tests and Chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate the effects of risk factors on EP and VP birth.

Results:

We identified 3 independent risk factors for EP birth: cervical incompetency (P < 0.001); multiple pregnancy (P < 0.01), primipara (P < 0.001). Additionally, we identified 4 independent risk factors for VP birth: gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (P < 0.05), preterm premature rupture of membrane (PPROM) (P < 0.01), fetal intrauterine distress (P < 0.001), and hypertensive disorder complicating pregnancy (HDCP) (P < 0.001). In addition, pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in the incidence rates of neonatal pneumonia, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and sepsis between the 28–28 + 6 and 29–29 + 6 weeks of gestation groups (P < 0.05). Compared with 28–28 + 6 weeks of gestation, neonatal complications were significantly more common at < 26 weeks of gestation (P < 0.05). The incidence rates of neonatal intracranial hemorrhage(NICH), patent ductus arteriosus(PDA), patent foramen ovale(PFO), pneumonia, BPD and sepsis were significantly higher in the 26–26 + 6 and 27–27 + 6 gestational weeks than in the 28–28 + 6 gestational weeks (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

PPROM, is the most common risk factor for EP and VP birth, and cervical insufficiency, multiple pregnancy, and primipara are independent risk factors for EP birth. Therefore, during pregnancy, attention should be devoted to the risk factors for PPROM, and reproductive tract infection should be actively prevented to reduce the occurrence of PPROM. Identifying the risk factors for cervical insufficiency, actively intervening before pregnancy, and cervical cervix ligation may be considered to reduce the occurrence of EP labor. For iatrogenic preterm birth, the advantages and disadvantages should be carefully weighed, and the gestational period should be extended beyond 28 weeks to enhance the safety of the mother and child and to improve the outcomes of preterm birth.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Preterm birth, especially extremely preterm (EP) birth and very preterm (VP) birth, is a major challenge for newborns and their families as well as for perinatologists and neonatologists [1]. The World Health Organization defines preterm birth as birth occurring before 37 weeks of gestation; the subcategories of preterm birth include EP birth (< 28 weeks of gestation), VP birth (28 to 31 + 6 weeks of gestation), and moderate-to-late preterm birth (32 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestation) [2]. There is heterogeneity in the preterm birth rate reported in different studies [3, 4, 5]. Among the 15 million preterm births that occur annually worldwide, approximately 5% are EP births, and 10% are born at 28–31 weeks of gestation [6]. A multi-center survey involving 89 hospitals in 25 provinces in China showed that the incidence of preterm birth was 7.3% between 2015 and 2016 [4]. While as reported in the World Health Organization (WHO) Report in 2019, the global had 14.8 million premature babies with the average preterm birth rate of 10.6%, and China had more than 1.1 million PTBs with the rate of 6.9% [5]. With the development of perinatal care and technology, survival among infants born at < 32 gestational weeks has improved dramatically over the past several decades [7, 8]. However, the prevalence of adverse medical and neurodevelopmental outcomes for those born at < 32 gestational weeks remain high [9, 10, 11], particularly for infants born at < 28 gestational weeks.

In recent years, the rate of preterm birth has increased in many counties [12]. Preterm labor is now thought to be a complex process initiated by multiple mechanisms. Causes [12, 13] of preterm birth occurring at less than 32 weeks of gestation have been hierarchically classified as infection or inflammation, preterm premature rupture of membrane (PPROM) [14], pregnancy hemorrhage (i.e., placental abruption and placenta previa), hypertensive diseases (essential hypertension, gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia), intrauterine growth retardation, and other immunologically mediated processes. Many studies [8, 15, 16] have shown that infants born at < 32 gestational weeks accounted for 12.9% of preterm births, > 50% of death and neurodevelopmental disabilities happen to them. Herein, birth conditions and complications of newborns born at < 32 gestational weeks were analyzed to verify this conclusion, and to compare neonatal complications at each gestational week to provide a basis for extension to a specific gestational week. In addition, we analyzed the factors related to EP and VP birth and determined the differences in related factors so that we could identify high-risk factors in the clinic to further extend the gestational period.

Materials and methods

Study subjects

Our primary hypothesis was that there would be a difference in factors related to EP and VP birth. We performed a retrospective cohort study and collected data from 2062 pregnant women admitted to Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital Affiliated with Nanjing Medical University in China from 2016 to 2020. Gestational age was determined based on the last menstruation and the earliest available reliable ultrasound data; if the last menstruation was unknown or uncertain, gestational age was determined using standard ultrasound data. A total of 241 women with incomplete information were excluded. We excluded 79 women with chronic diseases (chronic hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus) and immune diseases. We also excluded 21 women who had a history of smoking. A total of 123 women who experienced abortions, induced labor, or stillbirths were also excluded in Fig. 1. A total of 1889 babies were born at less than 32 weeks of gestation, including 229 premature babies who died due to severe illness and abandonment.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart for inclusions in the study

Full size image

Ethical approval

The study followed the Declaration of Helsinki and was conducted in accordance with the relevant local guidelines and regulations. The study was approved by theMedical Ethics Committee of Nanjing Maternal and Child Health Hospital, and informed consent was waived (No. 2022KY-033, Supplementary Material 1).

Statistical analysis

In this study, we compared women’s and newborns’ characteristics by t-tests and Chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate the effects of risk factors on EP and VP birth, i.e., scarred uterus, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), multiple pregnancy, cervical incompetency, hypertensive disorder complicating pregnancy (HDCP), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and abnormal fetal position. Risk factors for EP birth were identified by using binominal logistic regression models. We included scarred uterus, PPROM, multiple pregnancy, cervical incompetency, HDCP, GDM, and abnormal fetal position in the models. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to estimate relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted ORs and 95%CIs were calculated to present the risk. All analyses were conducted using R software (version 3.2.4, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). We also retrospectively analyzed the complications, birth weight, apgar score 1–5 min after birth, rate of abandonment during treatment, rate of recovery and hospital stay in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of infants born at < 32 gestational weeks. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies, and continuous variables are expressed as the mean (standard deviation). P < 0.05 was considered significant (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001).

Results

Comparison of general risk factors in pregnant women with EP and VP births

Furthermore, we analyzed the risk factors for EP and VP births. The study cohort consisted of 1598 pregnant women. Demographic and clinical characteristics for EP (n = 287) and VP (n = 1311) births are shown in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the following risk factors such as maternal age, miscarriages ≥ 3, primipara, days admitted to the hospital, blood type, abnormal placenta and sex of the newborn (P > 0.05). The probability of EP and VP births differed in pregnant women with the following risk factors: scarred uterus, PPROM, GDM, multiple pregnancy, abnormal fetal position, cervical insufficiency, fetal intrauterine distress, hypertensive disease during pregnancy, abnormal amniotic fluid, abnormal umbilical cord blood flow, and chorioamnionitis (P < 0.05).

Table 1 Comparison between women with EP and VP births. BMI, body mass index. *, t value
Full size table

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression

Since EP and VP births are highly complex processes, they are influenced by multiple factors. The variables in table 1 with P < 0.20 in the single-factor analysis (Fig. 2A) were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analysis (Fig. 2B), which we carried out to explore independent risk factors for EP and VP birth. The results are shown in Fig. 2 A-B. Following adjustment for some variables listed in Table 1, we identified 3 independent risk factors for EP birth: cervical incompetency (unadjusted OR 2.79, 95%CI 1.85–4.20; adjusted OR 2.52, 95%CI 1.58-4.00), multiple pregnancy (unadjusted OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.27–2.34; adjusted OR 1.63, 95%CI 1.15–2.32), and primipara (unadjusted OR 1.77, 95%CI 1.34–2.32; adjusted OR 1.60, 95%CI 1.14–2.25).We also identified 4 independent risk factors for VP birth: GDM (unadjusted OR 0.70, 95%CI 0.50–0.97; adjusted OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.47–0.96), PPROM (unadjusted OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.49–0.83; adjusted OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.46–0.83), fetal intrauterine distress (unadjusted OR 0.14, 95%CI 0.06–0.32; adjusted OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.17–0.99), and HDCP (unadjusted OR 0.16, 95%CI 0.07–0.34; adjusted OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.17–0.90).

Fig. 2
figure 2

A. Unadjusted odds ratios of clinical characteristics and other diseases in Table 1 for EP and VP births. B. Adjusted odds ratios of clinical characteristics and other diseases in Table 1 for EP and VP births, using multivariable logistic regression

Full size image

Comparison of complications among neonates born at less than 32 weeks of gestation

We excluded 229 premature babies who died due to severe illness and abandonment during the treatment, as shown in Fig. 3 (about 1660 babies after excluded 229 babies who died). The prevalence of complications associated with premature birth is related to gestational age and decreases with gestational age. Pairwise comparison revealed significant differences in the incidence of neonatal pneumonia, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and sepsis between the 28–28 + 6 and 29–29 + 6 weeks of gestation groups (P < 0.05), while other complications, including neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS), neonatal intracranial hemorrhage (NICH), neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (NHB), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), patent foramen ovale (PFO), sepsis, and neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Compared with the 28–28 + 6 weeks of gestation group, neonatal complications were more common among the < 26 weeks of gestation group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications such as NRDS, NHB and NEC between newborns born at 26–26 + 6 and 27–27 + 6 weeks of gestation and those born at 28–28 + 6 weeks of gestation (P > 0.05). The incidence rates of NICH, PDA, PFO, pneumonia, BPD and sepsis were significantly higher among newborns born at 26–26 + 6 and 27–27 + 6 weeks of gestation than among those born at 28–28 + 6 gestational weeks (P < 0.05). The incidence rates of complications such as NRDS, NICH, PFO and NEC were not significantly different between neonates born at 30–30 + 6 gestation and those born at 28–28 + 6 gestation (P > 0.05). The incidence of NHB, PDA, pneumonia, BPD and septicemia were significantly lower among neonates born at 30–30 + 6 gestation weeks than among those born at 28–28 + 6 gestational weeks (P < 0.05). Compared with newborns at 28–28 + 6 gestation weeks, the rate of neonatal complications significantly decreased at 31–31 + 6 weeks of gestation (P < 0.05).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of complications of premature infants at different gestational ages. The control group was 28–28 + 6 weeks of gestation. NRDS, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. NICH, neonatal intracranial hemorrhage. NHB, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. PDA, patent ductus arteriosus. PFO, patent foramen ovale. BPD, bronchopulmonary dysplasia. NEC, neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis

Full size image

Comparison of birth outcomes between EP and VP neonates

As shown in Fig. 3, births occurring at less than 32 weeks’ gestation were divided into two groups, namely, EP and VP births. The neonatal survival and mortality rates in the VP and EP groups are shown in Table 2. Among the 1,889 premature births, 358 were EP births and 1531 were VP births. The cure rate and recovery rate of neonates in the EP group were significantly lower than those in the VP birth group (P < 0.01), while the rates of hospital transfer, severe disease and mortality were significantly higher than those in the VP infant group (P < 0.001).

Then, we analyzed the birth status of surviving preterm infants, including 266 EP infants and 1394 VP infants (Table 3). The birth weight, Apgar 1 min and Apgar 5 min of EP infants were significantly lower than those of VP infants, while the number of hospitalization days in NICU were significantly higher than those of VP infants. There was no statistical difference (P > 0.05) in discharge weight of infants between the two groups.

Table 2 Survival and mortality rates in EP and VP birth groups
Full size table
Table 3 Birth status and hospitalization in the surviving EP and VP birth groups
Full size table

Discussion

PPROM [17] is one of the leading causes of premature birth, accounting for 30–40% of all preterm births. Consistently, in this study, PPROM was the primary risk factor for both EP and VP births (36.28% vs. 46.76%). In addition, we identified 3 independent factors for EP births and 4 independent risk factors for VP birth. A previous study showed that cervical insufficiency is an important cause of recurrence of second trimester miscarriage and EP delivery [18, 19], which was consistent with our findings. As an independent risk factor, our data show that the odds of EP birth among women with cervical incompetency were 2.515 times greater (95% CI 1.58-4.00) than those of VP women. For pregnant women with cervical insufficiency, prophylactic cervical cerclage could significantly reduce the incidence of EP birth [18]. Krupa et al. reported [20] that fewer than 1% of singleton pregnancies result in EP birth, while 5% of twins are delivered before 28 weeks gestation and 12.1% of twins are delivered before 32 weeks. As shown in Fig. 3, compared to VP birth, multiple pregnancy was the second-strongest independent risk factor (adjusted OR 1.63, 95%CI 1.15–2.32) for EP birth. With EP infants being at higher risk of poor outcomes, including death, twins are five times and triplets nearly 15 times more likely than singletons to die within one month of birth [21]. Interestingly, we found that primiparas had a 1.60-fold (95%CI 1.14–2.25) increased risk of EP birth. Consistently, Li et al. [22] analyzed the risk factors among 139 premature infants born in Shenzhen from 2003 to 2012 and revealed that the probability of preterm birth in primiparas was higher than that in multiparas. The association between parity and EP birth needs further investigation.

Surprisingly, GDM, PROM, fetal distress, and HDCP were protective factors for EP birth compared with VP birth, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.67, 0.62, 0.41, and 0.39, respectively. This finding is likely related to the mechanism and timing of these diseases.

The comparison with extremely preterm and very preterm births, which have poorer neonatal outcomes compared to full-term births [23, 24], may be less informative for clinical work. In a follow-up study, we will match a certain number of pregnant women delivered at term to compare the difference in prognosis between extremely preterm and very preterm newborns and full-term newborns. Each year, more than 60,000 neonates are born at less than 32 weeks of gestation [25]. In this study, the minimum birth weight of cured premature infants was 700 g at 25 + 4weeks gestational age, and these neonates were hospitalized in the NICU for 63 days before being discharged. Our data suggested that the birth weight and Apgar1-5 min score of EP infants were significantly lower than those of VP infants (P < 0.001), which were similar to those of a previous study [8], and hospitalization days in NICU and discharge weight of EP infants were significantly higher than those of VP infants (P < 0.001). Premature births due to an immature organ system are prone to many complications. A decrease in gestational age has been shown to be strongly associated with mortality and moderately associated with major neonatal morbidity [23]. In our study, there were significant differences in the incidence rates of neonatal pneumonia, BPD and sepsis between the 28–28 + 6 weeks of gestation and the 29–29 + 6 weeks of gestation groups, while other complications, including NRDS, NICH, NHB, PDA, PFO, sepsis, and neonatal NEC, did not differ significantly between these groups. This may provide a basis for extending the gestational period beyond 28 weeks when EP birth is unavoidable while ensuring the safety of the mother and child.

Limitations

Although we included many factors, there were some factors that may be missing or ignored due to not recorded in the medical record. For example, we did not consider smoking as a risk factor [12], these data are not fully available in our medical records. The 21 smokers in our inclusion flow chart are exact, and there are other uncertainties, and the smoking rate among Chinese women is low [26], so it is unlikely that our results will be meaningfully biased. In addition, our study was single-center and retrospective in nature. A multi-center study would be more meaningful and convincing, and it may be necessary to conduct multi-center research for the follow-up study.

Conclusion

PPROM is the most common risk factor for EP and VP births, and cervical insufficiency/multiple pregnancy/primipara is an independent risk factor for EP birth. The morbidity and mortality of premature infants are closely related to gestational age. The mortality and mortality of infants born at < 28 weeks of gestation were significantly higher. Therefore, during pregnancy, attention should be given to the risk factors for PPROM, and reproductive tract infection should be actively prevented to reduce the occurrence of PPROM. Identifying the risk factors for cervical insufficiency, actively intervening before pregnancy, and cervical cervix ligation may be considered to reduce the occurrence of EP birth. For iatrogenic preterm birth, the advantages and disadvantages should be carefully weighed, and the gestational period should be extended beyond 28 weeks to enhance the safety of the mother and child and to improve the outcomes of preterm birth.

Availability of data and material

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

References

  1. Tucker J, Mcguire W. Epidemiology of preterm birth. BMJ. 2004;329(7467):675–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Howson CP, Kinney MV, Mcdougall L, et al. Born too soon: preterm birth matters. Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yuan X, Han X, Jia C, et al. Low Fetal Fraction of Cell Free DNA at Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening Increases the Subsequent Risk of Preterm Birth in Uncomplicated Singleton Pregnancy. Int J Womens Health. 2022;14:889–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen C, Zhang JW, Xia HW, et al. Preterm Birth in China Between 2015 and 2016. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(11):1597–604.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller AB, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(1):e37–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Walani SR. Global burden of preterm birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;150(1):31–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barfield WD. Public Health Implications of Very Preterm Birth. Clin Perinatol. 2018;45(3):565–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kong X, Xu F, Wu R, et al. Neonatal mortality and morbidity among infants between 24 to 31 complete weeks: a multicenter survey in China from 2013 to 2014. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16(1):174.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Marlow N, Wolke D, Bracewell MA, et al. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(1):9–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Herber-Jonat S, Schulze A, Kribs A, et al. Survival and major neonatal complications in infants born between 22 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks of gestation (1999–2003). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(1):16–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De Groote I, Vanhaesebrouck P, Bruneel E, et al. Outcome at 3 years of age in a population-based cohort of extremely preterm infants. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(4):855–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, et al. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):75–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kyrklund-Blomberg NB, Granath F, Cnattingius S. Maternal smoking and causes of very preterm birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(6):572–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Morris JM, Roberts CL, Bowen JR, et al. Immediate delivery compared with expectant management after preterm pre-labour rupture of the membranes close to term (PPROMT trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):444–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Horbar JD, Carpenter JH, Badger GJ, et al. Mortality and neonatal morbidity among infants 501 to 1500 grams from 2000 to 2009. Pediatrics. 2012;129(6):1019–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Li J, Wang Q, Wei K, et al. A survey of neonatal births in the maternal departments in urban China 2005. Transl Pediatr. 2012;1(2):70–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Menon R, Fortunato SJ. Infection and the role of inflammation in preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(3):467–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sneider K, Christiansen OB, Sundtoft IB, et al. Recurrence of second trimester miscarriage and extreme preterm delivery at 16–27 weeks of gestation with a focus on cervical insufficiency and prophylactic cerclage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(12):1383–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sneider K, Christiansen OB, Sundtoft IB, et al. Recurrence rates after abdominal and vaginal cerclages in women with cervical insufficiency: a validated cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(4):859–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rafael TJ, Berghella V, Alfirevic Z. Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in multiple pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(9):Cd009166.

  21. Martin JA, Kung HC, Mathews TJ, et al. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2006. Pediatrics. 2008;121(4):788–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li C, Liang Z, Bloom MS, et al. Temporal trends of preterm birth in Shenzhen, China: a retrospective study. Reprod Health. 2018;15(1):47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu Z, Yuan L, Wang J, et al. Mortality and Morbidity of Infants Born Extremely Preterm at Tertiary Medical Centers in China From 2010 to 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(5):e219382.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kluwgant D, Wainstock T, Sheiner E, et al. Preterm Delivery; Who Is at Risk? J Clin Med. 2021;10(11).

  25. Belfort M, Cherkerzian S, Bell K, et al. Macronutrient Intake from Human Milk, Infant Growth, and Body Composition at Term Equivalent Age: A Longitudinal Study of Hospitalized Very Preterm Infants. Nutrients. 2020;12(8).

  26. Mou J, Fellmeth G, Griffiths S, et al. Tobacco smoking among migrant factory workers in Shenzhen, China. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(1):69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Springer Nature Author Services (https://secure.authorservices.springernature.com) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81901490).

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Women’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital), 210004, Nanjing, China

      Xiaohong Ji, Chengqian Wu, Min Chen, Lili Wu, Ting Li, Zhijing Miao, Yan Lv & Hongjuan Ding

    Authors
    1. Xiaohong Ji
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Chengqian Wu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Min Chen
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Lili Wu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Ting Li
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Zhijing Miao
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Yan Lv
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Hongjuan Ding
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Contributions

    Xiaohong Ji and Chengqian Wu data analysis and writing of the manuscript. Zhijing Miao and Min Chen data analysis, and guidance on manuscript revision. Lili Wu and Ting Li design experiments and data analysis. Yan Lv and Hongjuan Ding editorial review of the manuscript, and financial support. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

    Corresponding authors

    Correspondence to Yan Lv or Hongjuan Ding.

    Ethics declarations

    Ethics approval and consent to participate

    The study followed the Declaration of Helsinki and was conducted in accordance with the relevant local guidelines and regulations. The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Nanjing Maternal and Child Health Hospital (Approval No: 2022KY-033, Supplementary Material 1). And waiver of informed consent was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee of Nanjing Maternal and Child Health Hospital.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

    Additional information

    Publisher’s Note

    Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

    Xiaohong JI and Chengqian WU contributed equally to this work.

    Electronic supplementary material

    Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

    Supplementary Material 1

    Supplementary Material 2

    Rights and permissions

    Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Ji, X., Wu, C., Chen, M. et al. Analysis of risk factors related to extremely and very preterm birth: a retrospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 22, 818 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-05119-7

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-05119-7

    Keywords:

    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

    ISSN: 1471-2393

    Contact us