ArticleBMJ open2019
Developing evidence-based recommendations for optimal interpregnancy intervals in high-income countries: protocol for an international cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions and recommendations of multiparas and health-related professionals on appropriate birth intervals: A descriptive qualitative study.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Article
- Drivers of Uptake of Immediate Postpartum Modern Contraceptives by Postpartum Women in Lira City, Northern Uganda: A Qualitative Inquiry.Open access journal of contraception · 2025Article
- Maternal factors associated with interbirth intervals in Australia: Results from a population-based longitudinal study.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2022Article
- Association of Interpregnancy Interval With Adverse Birth Outcomes.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Association between interpregnancy interval and pregnancy complications by history of complications: a population-based cohort study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Associations between interpregnancy interval and preterm birth by previous preterm birth status in four high-income countries: a cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021Article
- Interpregnancy interval in lower versus higher human development index countries: a hypothesis about pregnancy spacing.International health · 2021Article
- Interpregnancy intervals and adverse birth outcomes in high-income countries: An international cohort study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Association of Short and Long Interpregnancy Intervals with Adverse Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Study in Northwest China.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- Shorter birth intervals between siblings are associated with increased risk of parental divorce.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionShort interpregnancy interval (IPI) has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes. WHO recommends waiting at least 2 years after a live birth and 6 months after miscarriage or induced termination before conception of another pregnancy. The evidence underpinning these recommendations largely relies on data from low/middle-income countries. Furthermore, recent epidemiological investigations have suggested that these studies may overestimate the effects of IPI due to residual confounding. Future investigations of IPI effects in high-income countries drawing from large, population-based data sources are needed to inform IPI recommendations. We aim to assess the impact of IPIs on maternal and child health outcomes in high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This international longitudinal retrospective cohort study will include more than 18 million pregnancies, making it the largest study to investigate IPI in high-income countries. Population-based data from Australia, Finland, Norway and USA will be used. Birth records in each country will be used to identify consecutive pregnancies. Exact dates of birth and clinical best estimates of gestational length will be used to estimate IPI. Administrative birth and health data sources with >99% coverage in each country will be used to identify maternal sociodemographics, pregnancy complications, details of labour and delivery, birth and child health information. We will use matched and unmatched regression models to investigate the impact of IPI on maternal and infant outcomes, and conduct meta-analysis to pool results across countries. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics boards at participating sites approved this research (approval was not required in Finland). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences, and will inform recommendations for optimal IPI in high-income countries. Findings will provide important information for women and families planning future pregnancies and for clinicians providing prenatal care and giving guidance on family planning.
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.