Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29282072›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

A pilot study to understand feasibility and acceptability of stool and cord blood sample collection for a large-scale longitudinal birth cohort.

S R Bailey, C L Townsend, H Dent, C Mallet, E Tsaliki, E M Riley, M Noursadeghi, T D Lawley, A J Rodger, P Brocklehurst and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Acceptability and Feasibility of Health Measures in Preteens: Findings From the ROLO Longitudinal Birth Cohort Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An Inventory of European Birth Cohorts.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

S R BaileyUCL Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
C L TownsendUCL Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
H DentUniversity College London Hospital, London, UK.
C MalletUniversity College London Hospital, London, UK.
E TsalikiDivision of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK.
E M RileyFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
M NoursadeghiDivision of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK.
T D LawleyWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK.
A J RodgerInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
P BrocklehurstInstitute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
N FieldInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. nigel.field@ucl.ac.uk.
University College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBLondon Women's Clinic · GBUniversity College Hospital · GBWellcome Sanger Institute · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT101169MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew data are available to guide biological sample collection around the time of birth for large-scale birth cohorts. We are designing a large UK birth cohort to investigate the role of infection and the developing immune system in determining future health and disease. We undertook a pilot to develop methodology for the main study, gain practical experience of collecting samples, and understand the acceptability of sample collection to women in late pregnancy.

methodsBetween February-July 2014, we piloted the feasibility and acceptability of collecting maternal stool, baby stool and cord blood samples from participants recruited at prolonged pregnancy and planned pre-labour caesarean section clinics at University College London Hospital. Participating women were asked to complete acceptability questionnaires.

resultsOverall, 265 women were approached and 171 (65%) participated, with ≥1 sample collected from 113 women or their baby (66%). Women had a mean age of 34 years, were primarily of white ethnicity (130/166, 78%), and half were nulliparous (86/169, 51%). Women undergoing planned pre-labour caesarean section were more likely than those who delivered vaginally to provide ≥1 sample (98% vs 54%), but less likely to provide maternal stool (10% vs 43%). Pre-sample questionnaires were completed by 110/171 women (64%). Most women reported feeling comfortable with samples being collected from their baby (<10% uncomfortable), but were less comfortable about their own stool (19% uncomfortable) or a vaginal swab (24% uncomfortable).

conclusionsIt is possible to collect a range of biological samples from women around the time of delivery, and this was acceptable for most women. These data inform study design and protocol development for large-scale birth cohorts.

Indexed as

FecesFetal BloodPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultBlood Specimen CollectionCesarean SectionFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaternal Serum Screening TestsPilot ProjectsPregnancyPregnancy, ProlongedPreoperative CareSpecimen HandlingAcceptabilityBioarchiveBiological samplesCord bloodFeasibilityInfant faecesLarge-scale birth cohorts

Identifiers

PMID29282072
PMCPMC5745976
OpenAlexW2779740086

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.