ArticleScientific reports2022
Interpregnancy interval and maternal and neonatal morbidity: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The association between interpregnancy intervals and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Interpregnancy intervals and maternal and neonatal outcomes: A retrospective cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Patterns and determinants of short and long interpregnancy intervals among pregnant women in Ethiopia: a population-based cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Impact of Short and Long Interpregnancy Intervals on Neonatal Outcomes: A Multiclassification Cohort Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- When Your Body Tells You to Not Breastfeed-The Connivance of Oxytocin, Prolactin, and Dopamine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the association between interpregnancy interval (IPI)-the time from childbirth to conception of the next pregnancy-and maternal and neonatal morbidity. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends an IPI of at least 24 months after a live birth to reduce adverse birth outcomes. However, assessing the relationship between IPI and perinatal outcome is complicated by confounding factors. We conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using Swedish registry data, allowing for adjustment of maternal characteristics and health at first birth. The study population consisted of all women with a singleton, live, and vaginal first birth with a second singleton birth within five years during 1997-2017, covering 327,912 women and 655,824 neonates. IPI was grouped into six-month intervals with 24-29 months as the reference. The association between IPI and morbidity was examined using multivariate logistic regression. For women having a vaginal delivery at their first birth, intervals < 24-29 months were associated with decreased maternal morbidity and unaffected neonatal morbidity. Intervals > 24-29 months were associated with increased maternal and neonatal morbidity. Our findings question the relevance of WHO's recommendation of an IPI of at least 24 months in a high-income country.
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.