Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29333283›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2017

Adverse effects of exposure to armed conflict on pregnancy: a systematic review.

James Keasley, Jessica Blickwedel, Siobhan Quenby

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in Gaza amid armed hostilities in 2025.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

James KeasleyWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Jessica BlickwedelWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Siobhan QuenbyDivision of Biomedical Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExposure to armed conflict has manifold implications for both military and civilian populations. Prenatal stress has detrimental effects on both obstetric outcomes, fetal development and the development of an individual later in life. As well as causing stress to the mother, armed conflicts can decimate local infrastructures making it increasingly difficult to access antenatal and general healthcare. The present review is particularly salient in light of the many ongoing current conflicts. It examines the impacts of exposure to armed conflicts on the pregnancy outcomes.

methodsA thorough literature search was carried out on three databases using MeSH and truncation terms. 13 studies were included in the final analysis relating to mothers exposed to armed conflicts since 1990.

resultsThe studies include data from 1 172 151 patients: mothers from Libya, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Israel, Palestine, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Nepal, Somalia, Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. There is evidence of an increased risk of mothers giving birth to babies of low birth weight as reported in nine included studies. All have a degree of bias, with four at lower and five at higher risk of bias, either not adjusting for confounders or not employing robust measures of exposure to conflict. Further evidence suggested an increase in the incidence of miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, congenital abnormalities, miscarriage and premature rupture of membranes among mothers exposed to armed conflict.

conclusionDespite the varying degrees of bias which must be considered for the available evidence, the data with the lowest risk of bias suggest a relationship between exposure to armed conflict and low birth weight. In light of the current level of displacement experienced by such populations, the identification of pregnancies at risk could improve the efficacy of antenatal care. Clinicians should consider additional ultrasound scanning where appropriate to monitor for restricted growth in such pregnancies.

Indexed as

obstetricssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29333283
PMCPMC5706483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.