ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2016
Long-term Recall of Time to Pregnancy.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Historical Neighborhood Redlining and Fertility in a Cohort of US Black Women.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Atopic dermatitis and fecundity: a Danish National Birth Cohort study.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Associations of In Utero Exposure to Racial Violence and Reproductive Development: The Bogalusa Heart Study.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025Article
- NSAID exposure delays time-to-pregnancy in patients with spondyloarthritis: an analysis of the GR2 prospective cohort.RMD open · 2024Observational
- The current situation and future directions for the study on time-to-pregnancy: a scoping review.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- DNA methylation in newborns conceived by assisted reproductive technology.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Infertility Among African American Women With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Compared to Healthy Women: A Pilot Study.Arthritis care & research · 2020Article
- Anti-Müllerian hormone levels in nurses working night shifts.Archives of environmental & occupational health · 2020Article
- Mining leachate contamination and subfecundity among women living near the USA-Mexico border.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2019Article
- Maternal Selenium, Copper and Zinc Concentrations in Early Pregnancy, and the Association with Fertility.Nutrients · 2019Article
- Exposure to tetrachloroethylene-contaminated drinking water and time to pregnancy.Environmental research · 2018Article
- "Research on Infertility: Definition Makes a Difference" Revisited.American journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the widespread use of retrospectively reported time to pregnancy to evaluate fertility either as an outcome or as a risk factor for chronic disease, only two small studies have directly compared prospective data with later recall.
methodsThe North Carolina Early Pregnancy Study (1982-1986) collected prospective time-to-pregnancy data from the beginning of participants' pregnancy attempt. In 2010, (24-28 years later) women were sent a questionnaire including lifetime reproductive history that asked about all prior times to pregnancy. Of the 202 women with prospective time-to-pregnancy data, 76% provided recalled time to pregnancy.
resultsA lower proportion of women with times to pregnancy ≥3 cycles provided a recalled time to pregnancy than women with times to pregnancy <3 cycles. Also, high gravidity or parity was associated with a lower likelihood of providing a recalled time to pregnancy. Women with very short or very long times to pregnancy (1 cycle or ≥13 cycles) had good recall of time to pregnancy. Positive predictive values of 1 or ≥13 cycles were 73% and 68%, respectively, while positive predictive values for other categories of time to pregnancy ranged from 38% to 58%. The weighted kappa statistic for recalled versus prospective time to pregnancy was 0.72 (95% confidence interval: 0.65, 0.79).
conclusionsRecalled time to pregnancy showed good agreement with prospective time to pregnancy. Informative missingness must be considered when imputing recalled time to pregnancy. Associations observed in future studies can be corrected for misclassification.
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.