Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21852769›Full record

ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2012

Consanguinity, prematurity, birth weight and pregnancy loss: a prospective cohort study at four primary health center areas of Karnataka, India.

M B Bellad, S S Goudar, S A Edlavitch, N S Mahantshetti, V Naik, J J Hemingway-Foday, M Gupta, H R Nalina, R Derman, N Moss and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

M B BelladDepartment of Medical Education, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, India.
S S Goudar
S A Edlavitch
N S Mahantshetti
V Naik
J J Hemingway-Foday
M Gupta
H R Nalina
R Derman
N Moss
B S Kodkany
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College · INChristiana Care Health System · USNational Institutes of Health · USRTI International · USUniversity of Missouri–Kansas City · US

Funding

UMKC-JNMC Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research UnitU01HD042372 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY · PI DERMAN, RICHARD J · 2001 to 2012
$6.9M
NICHD NIH HHS 5U01HD042372-08NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD042372
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether consanguinity adversely influences pregnancy outcome in South India, where consanguinity is a common means of family property retention. STUDY

designData were collected from a prospective cohort of 647 consenting women, consecutively registered for antenatal care between 14 and 18 weeks gestation, in Belgaum district, Karnataka in 2005. Three-generation pedigree charts were drawn for consanguineous participants. χ (2)-Test and Student's t-test were used to assess categorical and continuous data, respectively, using SPSS version 14. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for confounding variables.

resultOverall, 24.1% of 601 women with singleton births and outcome data were consanguineous. Demographic characteristics between study groups were similar. Non-consanguineous couples had fewer stillbirths (2.6 vs 6.9% P=0.017; adjusted P=0.050), miscarriages (1.8 vs 4.1%, P=0.097; adjusted P=0.052) and lower incidence of birth weight <2500 g (21.8 vs 29.5%, P=0.071, adjusted P=0.044). Gestation <37 weeks was 6.2% in both the groups. Adjusted for consanguinity and other potential confounders, age <20 years was protective of stillbirth (P=0.01), pregnancy loss (P=0.023) and preterm birth (P=0.013), whereas smoking (P=0.015) and poverty (P=0.003) were associated with higher rates of low birth weight.

conclusionConsanguinity significantly increases pregnancy loss and birth weight <2500 g.

Indexed as

ConsanguinityInfant, Low Birth WeightAbortion, SpontaneousFemaleHumansIncidenceIndiaInfant, NewbornLogistic ModelsMaleMultivariate AnalysisPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPremature BirthProspective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID21852769
PMCPMC13276658
OpenAlexW1982069745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.