ArticleDisability and health journal2021
Pregnancy outcomes among visually impaired women in Washington State, 1987-2014.
Article in Disability and health journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Multimorbidity in Emergency Department Visits: A Latent Class Analysis by Intellectual and Developmental Disability Status in the United States.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Article
- Birth Outcomes and Rehospitalizations Among Pregnant Women With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Their Offspring.Arthritis care & research · 2023Article
- Severe maternal morbidity and other perinatal complications among women with physical, sensory, or intellectual and developmental disabilities.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2022Article
- Barriers to and facilitators of effective communication in perinatal care: a qualitative study of the experiences of birthing people with sensory, intellectual, and/or developmental disabilities.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWomen with visual impairment may have reduced ability to access standard care resources, however, information on their pregnancy and neonatal outcomes is limited.
objectiveTo assess risk of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes among visually impaired women in Washington State from 1987 to 2014.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked Washington State birth/fetal death hospital discharge records to compare outcomes among women with and without visual impairment noted at their delivery hospitalization. Pregnancy conditions and outcomes evaluated included gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, labor induction and cesarean delivery. Neonatal outcomes included preterm delivery and birth weight <2500 g. We assessed length of maternal and infant delivery hospitalization. We performed Poisson regression to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, adjusting for year of delivery, maternal age, and parity.
resultsMost adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were similar for visually impaired (N = 232) and comparison women (N = 2362). However, visually impaired women had increased risks of severe pre-eclampsia (RR 3.77, 95% CI 1.69-8.43), labor induction (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10-1.61) and preterm delivery (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.06-2.42). They were also more likely to have delivery hospitalizations of 3 or more days following a vaginal (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.41-2.47). Among cesarean deliveries, infants of visually impaired women had increased risk (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.51) of hospitalization for 3 or more days postpartum.
conclusionOur findings may be useful for obstetric providers in counseling their visually impaired patients.
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.