ArticleSAGE open medicine2022
Interpregnancy interval after a miscarriage and obstetric outcomes in the subsequent pregnancy in a low-income setting, Nigeria: A cohort study.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing regional disparities and sociodemographic influences on short birth intervals (SBI) among reproductive-age women in Nigeria.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Association between interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal outcomes according to maternal age in the context of China's two-child policy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Navigating miscarriage in Jordan: understanding emotional responses and coping strategies.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine and compare the occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in a cohort of pregnant women with interpregnancy interval of < and ⩾6 months (short and normal interpregnancy interval, respectively) following a spontaneous miscarriage in their last pregnancies. Methods: This was a cohort study that involved pregnant women with a spontaneous pregnancy loss in their last pregnancies. They were recruited at a gestational age of 13-15 weeks and followed up to determine the obstetric and foetal outcomes of their pregnancies at four tertiary hospitals in Nigeria from July 2018 to September 2019. Data collected were analysed using SPSS version 26.0. A Chi-square and multivariate logistic regression analysis were done, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was assumed to be statistically significant. Results: A total of 705 participants were studied, out of which 448 (63.5%) and 257 (36.5%) of the participants had short and normal interpregnancy interval after a spontaneous miscarriage. Over 80% of the participants had first-trimester pregnancy losses and were managed with manual vacuum aspiration in 73.3% of the cases. The majority, 87.5% for the normal interpregnancy interval cohort and 86.4% for the short interpregnancy interval cohort, had live births, while 8.5% and 10.1% of the women in the normal and short interpregnancy interval cohorts, respectively, had repeat miscarriages. There was no statistical difference in the occurrence of live births and repeat miscarriages between both cohorts (p > 0.05). There was no increased risk of occurrence of adverse foetomaternal outcomes in both groups (p > 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in the occurrence adverse foetomaternal outcomes between the studied cohorts (p > 0.05). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the occurrence of adverse maternal and foetal outcomes in the cohorts of mothers with short and normal interpregnancy interval following miscarriages in their last previous pregnancies.
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.