Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27277945›Full record

Observational studyEnvironmental health : a global access science source2016

The Home Observation of Periconceptional Exposures (HOPE) study, a prospective cohort: aims, design, recruitment and compliance.

Christina A Porucznik, Kyley J Cox, Karen C Schliep, Diana G Wilkins, Joseph B Stanford

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Large-Scale Data Harmonization Across Prospective Studies.American journal of epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christina A PorucznikOffice of Cooperative Reproductive Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, 375 Chipeta Way, Suite A, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA. Christy.porucznik@utah.edu.
Kyley J CoxOffice of Cooperative Reproductive Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, 375 Chipeta Way, Suite A, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
Karen C SchliepOffice of Cooperative Reproductive Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, 375 Chipeta Way, Suite A, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
Diana G WilkinsCenter for Human Toxicology, University of Utah, 30 South 2000 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Joseph B StanfordOffice of Cooperative Reproductive Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, 375 Chipeta Way, Suite A, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
University of Utah · US

Funding

Peri-Conceptional BiomonitoringR01ES020488 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI PORUCZNIK, CHRISTINA · 2011 to 2015
$2.1M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES020488
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo examine transient environmental exposures and their relationship with human fecundity, exposure assessment should occur optimally at the time of conception in both members of the couple. We performed an observational, prospective cohort study with biomonitoring in both members of a heterosexual couple trying to conceive. Couples collected urine, saliva, and semen specimens for up to two menstrual cycles on days corresponding to the time windows of fertilization, implantation, and early pregnancy, identified based on the woman's observations of her cervical fluid.

resultsThree hundred nine eligible couples were screened between 2011 and 2015, of which 183 enrolled. Eleven couples (6.0 %) withdrew or were lost to follow up. The most successful and cost effective recruiting strategies were word of mouth (40 % of participating couples), posters and flyers (37 %), and targeted Facebook advertising (13 %) with an overall investment of $37.35 spent on recruitment per couple. Both men and women collected ≥97.2 % of requested saliva samples, and men collected ≥89.9 % of requested semen samples. Within the periovulatory days (±3 days), there was at least one urine specimen collected by women in 97.1 % of cycles, and at least one by men in 91.7 % of cycles. Daily compliance with periovulatory urine specimens ranged from 66.5 to 92.4 % for women and from 55.7 to 75.0 % for men. Compliance was ≥88 % for questionnaire completion at specified time points.

conclusionsCouples planning to conceive can be recruited successfully for periconceptional monitoring, and will comply with intensive study protocols involving home collection of biospecimens and questionnaire data.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureFertilizationAdultFamily CharacteristicsFemaleFertilityHumansMaleProspective StudiesYoung AdultEndocrine disrupting chemicalsFecundityOvulationPreconceptionResearch participant recruitmentSemen

Identifiers

PMID27277945
PMCPMC4898368
OpenAlexW2419419334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.