ArticleHealth science reports2020
Second generation of the 1993 birth cohort, Pelotas (Brazil): Aims, design, preliminary results.
Article in Health science reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Second generation of the 1993 birth cohort, Pelotas (Brazil): Aims, design, preliminary results.Health science reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsLongitudinal cohort studies examining different generations can explain how health problems can be transmitted through genetic and environmental mechanisms and their effects on the health of offspring. This study aimed to present the design and to describe the characteristics of the baseline sample of a second generation cohort.
methodsThe 93Cohort-II is a dynamic prospective cohort composed of a second generation from the original 1993 Pelotas Birth Cohort (offspring), whose parents had their last follow-up at 22 years old. Biological parents were asked to answer questions addressing the type of birth, general health status, family composition, dietary habits, breastfeeding habits, and child-caregiver(s), among others, and the children's anthropometric measurements were evaluated.
resultsOf 1650 children identified, 1212 were evaluated (response rate, 73.4%), and 21 died before the baseline assessment. The age of the offspring ranged from 0 to 10 years (mean [±SD], 2.9 ± 2.1 years); most children (65.6%) lived with both parents and were born to young mothers and poor families. One-third of the children were breastfed until 6 months of age, one-half were born by cesarean section, 63.9% had used medication in the previous 15 days, 26.4% experienced hospitalization at least once since birth, and 14% had no updated vaccination; asthma/bronchitis (20.4%) and bronchiolitis (13.4%) were the most frequently reported diseases. More than 60% consumed ultra-processed foods, and the prevalence of overweight among those <5 and ≥6 years of age was 10.2% and 18.9%, respectively. The mean total Child Behavior Checklist score was 44.1 ± 23.61 (≥16 months), and the mean intellectual quotient score in children ≥6 years of age was 97.9 ± 15.4.
conclusionDespite the difficulties in conducting intergenerational cohort studies, the results of the present investigation provide evidence supporting the feasibility of performing these types of studies in middle-income countries.
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.