Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22700833›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2012

Social inequality and infant health in the UK: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Alison L Weightman, Helen E Morgan, Michael A Shepherd, Hilary Kitcher, Chris Roberts, Frank D Dunstan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Alison L WeightmanSupport Unit for Research Evidence (SURE), Information Services, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Helen E Morgan
Michael A Shepherd
Hilary Kitcher
Chris Roberts
Frank D Dunstan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the association between area and individual measures of social disadvantage and infant health in the UK.

designSystematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 26 databases and websites, reference lists, experts in the field and hand-searching. STUDY SELECTION: 36 prospective and retrospective observational studies with socioeconomic data and health outcomes for infants in the UK, published from 1994 to May 2011. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 2 independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies and abstracted data. Where possible, study outcomes were reported as ORs for the highest versus the lowest deprivation quintile.

resultsIn relation to the highest versus lowest area deprivation quintiles, the odds of adverse birth outcomes were 1.81 (95% CI 1.71 to 1.92) for low birth weight, 1.67 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.96) for premature birth and 1.54 (95% CI 1.39 to 1.72) for stillbirth. For infant mortality rates, the ORs were 1.72 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.15) overall, 1.61 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.39) for neonatal and 2.31 (95% CI 2.03 to 2.64) for post-neonatal mortality. For lowest versus highest social class, the odds were 1.79 (95% CI 1.43 to 2.24) for low birth weight, 1.52 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.61) for overall infant mortality, 1.42 (95% CI 1.33 to1.51) for neonatal and 1.69 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.87) for post-neonatal mortality. There are similar patterns for other infant health outcomes with the possible exception of failure to thrive, where there is no clear association.

conclusionsThis review quantifies the influence of social disadvantage on infant outcomes in the UK. The magnitude of effect is similar across a range of area and individual deprivation measures and birth and mortality outcomes. Further research should explore the factors that are more proximal to mothers and infants, to help throw light on the most appropriate times to provide support and the form(s) that this support should take.

Identifiers

PMID22700833
PMCPMC3378945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.