ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2016
Evaluation of Selection Bias in an Internet-based Study of Pregnancy Planners.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 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
65 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early food for future health: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of an eHealth intervention aiming to promote healthy food habits from early childhood.BMC public health · 2017Trial
- Discrimination and risk of spontaneous abortion in a preconception cohort study.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2026Article
- Residential proximity to oil and gas development and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- A preconception cohort study of historical mortgage lending discrimination and present-day fecundability.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Racial and ethnic disparities in fecundability: a North American preconception cohort study.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Exposure to residential greenness, perceived stress, and depressive symptoms in a North American preconception cohort.Environmental research · 2024Article
- The association between the use of fertility indicators and fecundability in a Danish preconception cohort.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2024Article
- Association between job control and time to pregnancy in a preconception cohort.Fertility and sterility · 2024Article
- Air pollution and fecundability in a North American preconception cohort study.Environment international · 2023Article
- Associations of periconceptional oral contraceptive use with pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Associations between Residential Greenspace and Fecundability in a North American Preconception Cohort Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Perceived stress and semen quality.Andrology · 2023Article
- Pre-pregnancy migraine diagnosis, medication use, and spontaneous abortion: a prospective cohort study.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Article
- Article
- The association between time-to-pregnancy and postpartum depressive symptoms in a North American prospective cohort study.Annals of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Association Between Neighborhood Disadvantage and Fertility Among Pregnancy Planners in the US.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Association Between Distance to an Abortion Facility and Abortion or Pregnancy Outcome Among a Prospective Cohort of People Seeking Abortion Online.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- The association between work hours, shift work, and job latitude with fecundability: A preconception cohort study.Journal of occupational health psychology · 2022Article
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selection bias is a potential concern in all epidemiologic studies, but it is usually difficult to assess. Recently, concerns have been raised that internet-based prospective cohort studies may be particularly prone to selection bias. Although use of the internet is efficient and facilitates recruitment of subjects that are otherwise difficult to enroll, any compromise in internal validity would be of great concern. Few studies have evaluated selection bias in internet-based prospective cohort studies. Using data from the Danish Medical Birth Registry from 2008 to 2012, we compared six well-known perinatal associations (e.g., smoking and birth weight) in an internet-based preconception cohort (Snart Gravid n = 4,801) with the total population of singleton live births in the registry (n = 239,791). We used log-binomial models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each association. We found that most results in both populations were very similar. For example, maternal obesity was associated with an increased risk of delivering a macrosomic infant in Snart Gravid (RR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.7) and the total population (RR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.45, 1.53), and maternal smoking of >10 cigarettes per day was associated with a higher risk of low birth weight (RR = 2.7; 95% CI: 1.2, 5.9 vs. RR = 2.9; 95% CI: 2.6, 3.1) in Snart Gravid and the total population, respectively. We cannot be certain that our results would apply to other associations or different populations. Nevertheless, our results suggest that recruitment of reproductive aged women via the internet may be no more prone to selection bias than traditional methods of recruitment.
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.