ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Determining antenatal medicine exposures in South African women: a comparison of three methods of ascertainment.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prior knowledge-guided convolutional neural network model for predicting fetal brain age from MRI during second and third trimesters.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Comparing self-report medication data from a longitudinal study on intellectual disability and national dispensing records.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Article
- Safety surveillance for PrEP in pregnant and breastfeeding women.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the absence of clinical trials, data on the safety of medicine exposures in pregnancy are dependent on observational studies conducted after the agent has been licensed for use. This requires an accurate history of antenatal medicine use to determine potential risks. Medication use is commonly determined by self-report, clinician records, and electronic pharmacy data; different data sources may be more informative for different types of medication and resources may differ by setting. We compared three methods to determine antenatal medicine use (self-report, clinician records and electronic pharmacy dispensing records [EDR]) in women attending antenatal care at a primary care facility in Cape Town, South Africa in a setting with high HIV prevalence.
methodsStructured, interview-administered questionnaires recorded self-reported medicine use. Data were collected from clinician records and EDR on the same participants. We determined agreement between these data sources using Cohen's kappa and, lacking a gold standard, used Latent Class Analysis to estimate sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for each data source.
resultsBetween 55% and 89% of 967 women had any medicine use documented depending on the data source (median number of medicines/participant = 5 [IQR 3-6]). Agreement between the datasets was poor regardless of class except for antiretroviral therapy (ART; kappa 0.6-0.71). Overall, agreement was better between the EDR and self-report than with either dataset and the clinician records. Sensitivity and PPV were higher for self-report and the EDR and were similar for the two. Self-report was the best source for over-the-counter, traditional and complementary medicines; clinician records for vaccines and supplements; and EDR for chronic medicines.
conclusionsMedicine use in pregnancy was common and no single data source included all the medicines used. ART was the most consistently reported across all three datasets but otherwise agreement between them was poor and dependent on class. Using a single data collection method will under-estimate medicine use in pregnancy and the choice of data source should be guided by the class of the agents being investigated.
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.