ArticleReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2022
Is telephone follow-up reliable in maternal and neonatal outcomes surveys in in vitro fertilization?
Article in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global and regional incidence of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies that collect maternal and neonatal outcomes rely on patient self-report phone calls. It is unclear how reliable or accurate these phone call reports are.
objectiveTo evaluate the reliability of telephone calls in information collection in IVF. STUDY
designThe women were interviewed seven days after delivery by a nurse via telephone. The maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded based on a self-report from one of the spouses. Meanwhile, the standardized electronic hospitalized discharge records were extracted from the hospital medical database. For each case, maternal and neonatal information obtained from telephone interviews and extracted from medical files were compared.
resultsAgreement was classified as "almost perfect, K = 0.81-1.00" for preterm birth, cesarean delivery, low birth weight baby, and macrosomia. The strength of agreement was classified as "moderate, K = 0.41-0.60" for some antepartum complications: gestational diabetes (K = 0.569); pregnancy-induced hypertension (K = 0.588); intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (K = 0.597) and oligohydramnios (K = 0.432). The strength of agreement between telephone interviews and hospitalized discharge records can be classified as "slight (K = 0-0.20)" for some complications: thyroid diseases (K = 0.137), anemia (K = 0.047), postpartum hemorrhage (K = 0.016), and Fetal distress (K = 0.106).
conclusionSome variables (preterm birth, cesarean delivery, birth weight) information collected by telephone follow-up were reliable. However, other complications (thyroid diseases, anemia, postpartum hemorrhage, and fetal distress) collected via self-report was non-reliable. Compared with complications during labor, antepartum complications have higher agreement between different follow-up methods. IVF records and hospitalized discharge records should be matched and collected simultaneously when discussing maternal and neonatal outcomes of IVF.
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.