Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 17, 2026

Author Spotlight: Modeling an Aspect of Preeclampsia in Female Mice Using Hypoxic Human Placenta-Derived Small Extracellular Vesicles
Published on: January 26, 2024
Left truncation bias as a potential explanation for the protective effect of smoking on preeclampsia
1From the aDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of British Columbia and the Children's and Women's Hospital and Health Centre of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; and bSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Background:
We carried out a study to examine whether left truncation bias could explain the negative association between smoking and preeclampsia.
Methods:
Monte Carlo and other simulation models were used to determine the effect of differential rates of early pregnancy loss among smokers on the relation between smoking and preeclampsia at ≥20 weeks' gestation. Assumptions included no association between smoking and the abnormal placentation that characterizes preeclampsia, and higher rates of early pregnancy loss among smokers, pregnancies with abnormal placentation, and smokers with abnormal placentation.
Results:
Monte Carlo simulation yielded a rate ratio for preeclampsia, given smoking of 0.85 (95% confidence interval = 0.73, 0.98). The protective effect of smoking was also evident in simulations that did not require assumptions about early pregnancy loss rates.
Conclusion:
Left truncation bias due to differential rates of early pregnancy loss among smokers is a plausible explanation for the inverse association between maternal smoking and preeclampsia.
Related Concept Videos
Truncation in Survival Analysis
Left truncation occurs when individuals who experienced the event of interest before a certain time are not included in the study. This is often due to a "delayed entry" into the study where only those who survive until a certain entry point are...
Regression Toward the Mean
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Teratogenicity
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Stress Prevention and Stress Management Techniques IV

