ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2015
Maternal Recall Error in Retrospectively Reported Time-to-Pregnancy: an Assessment and Bias Analysis.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Historical Neighborhood Redlining and Fertility in a Cohort of US Black Women.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Age among women and men, time to pregnancy and risk of miscarriage.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Telomere length in relation to fecundability and use of assisted reproductive technologies: the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Epigenetic aging and fecundability: the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Associations of periconception dietary glycemic index and load with fertility in women and men: a study among couples in the general population.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Probabilistic bias analysis for exposure misclassification of household income by neighbourhood in a cohort of individuals with colorectal cancer.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Associations between Residential Greenspace and Fecundability in a North American Preconception Cohort Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Investigating continuation of folic acid supplementation during peri-conceptional period: a community-based cross-sectional study.Reproductive health · 2023Article
- Early childhood respiratory tract infections according to parental subfertility and conception by assisted reproductive technologies.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- The association between miscarriage and fecundability: the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Monte Carlo Simulation Approaches for Quantitative Bias Analysis: A Tutorial.Epidemiologic reviews · 2022Review
- Daily perceived stress and time to pregnancy: A prospective cohort study of women trying to conceive.Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2019Article
- Short- and long-term effect of contraceptive methods on fecundity.The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception · 2019Observational
- A gestational vulnerability window for smoking exposure and the increased risk of preterm birth: how timing and intensity of maternal smoking matter.Reproductive health · 2019Article
- Exposure to tetrachloroethylene-contaminated drinking water and time to pregnancy.Environmental research · 2018Article
- Lubricant use during intercourse and time to pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2018Article
- First Trimester Urinary Bisphenol and Phthalate Concentrations and Time to Pregnancy: A Population-Based Cohort Analysis.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2018Article
- Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2017Review
- Preconception use of pain-relievers and time-to-pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
- Self-reported pregnancy-related health problems and self-rated health status in Rwandan women postpartum: a population-based cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEpidemiologic studies of fecundability often use retrospectively measured time-to-pregnancy (TTP), thereby introducing potential for recall error. Little is known about how recall error affects the bias and precision of the fecundability odds ratio (FOR) in such studies.
methodsUsing data from the Danish Snart-Gravid Study (2007-12), we quantified error for TTP recalled in the first trimester of pregnancy relative to prospectively measured TTP among 421 women who enrolled at the start of their pregnancy attempt and became pregnant within 12 months. We defined recall error as retrospectively measured TTP minus prospectively measured TTP. Using linear regression, we assessed mean differences in recall error by maternal characteristics. We evaluated the resulting bias in the FOR and 95% confidence interval (CI) using simulation analyses that compared corrected and uncorrected retrospectively measured TTP values.
resultsRecall error (mean = -0.11 months, 95% CI -0.25, 0.04) was not appreciably associated with maternal age, gravidity, or recent oral contraceptive use. Women with TTP > 2 months were more likely to underestimate their TTP than women with TTP ≤ 2 months (unadjusted mean difference in error: -0.40 months, 95% CI -0.71, -0.09). FORs of recent oral contraceptive use calculated from prospectively measured, retrospectively measured, and corrected TTPs were 0.82 (95% CI 0.67, 0.99), 0.74 (95% CI 0.61, 0.90), and 0.77 (95% CI 0.62, 0.96), respectively.
conclusionsRecall error was small on average among pregnancy planners who became pregnant within 12 months. Recall error biased the FOR of recent oral contraceptive use away from the null by 10%. Quantitative bias analysis of the FOR can help researchers quantify the bias from recall error.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.