Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28553062›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of osteoarchaeology

Dedicated Followers of Fashion? Bioarchaeological Perspectives on Socio-Economic Status, Inequality, and Health in Urban Children from the Industrial Revolution (18th-19th C), England.

S L Newman, R L Gowland

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of osteoarchaeology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
21.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Health inequality in Britain before 1750.SSM - population health · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S L NewmanDepartment of Archaeology Durham University Durham UK.
R L GowlandDepartment of Archaeology Durham University Durham UK.
Durham University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 18th and 19th centuries in England were characterised by a period of increasing industrialisation of its urban centres. It was also one of widening social and health inequalities between the rich and the poor. Childhood is well-documented as being a stage in the life course during which the body is particularly sensitive to adverse socio-economic environments. This study therefore aims to examine the relationship between health and wealth through a comprehensive skeletal analysis of a sample of 403 children (0-17 years), of varying socio-economic status, from four cemetery sites in London (c.1712-1854). Measurements of long bone diaphyseal length, cortical thickness, vertebral neural canal size, and the prevalence of a range of pathological indicators of health stress were recorded from the Chelsea Old Church (high status), St Benet Sherehog (middle status), Bow Baptist (middle status), and Cross Bones (low status) skeletal collections. Children from the low status Cross Bones site demonstrated deficient growth values, as expected. However, those from the high status site of Chelsea Old Church also demonstrated poor growth values during infancy. Fashionable child-care practices (e.g. the use of artificial infant feeds and keeping children indoors) may have contributed to poor infant health amongst high status groups. However, differing health risks in the lower status group revealed the existence of substantial health inequality in London at this time.

Indexed as

growthLondonpalaeopathologypost‐medievalvitamin D deficiencyweaning

Identifiers

PMID28553062
PMCPMC5428467
OpenAlexW2338054398

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.