ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2022
Short interdelivery interval in modern obstetrics: Maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and determinants of cesarean section delivery among Somali women: a multivariable analysis of a nationally representative survey.Global health action · 2026Article
- Impact of Short and Long Interpregnancy Intervals on Neonatal Outcomes: A Multiclassification Cohort Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Third-trimester uterine rupture following previous salpingectomy for interstitial pregnancy: radiologic and surgical insights.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- "Predictors of failed vaginal birth after cesarean and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes: a case control study".BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- A history of recurrent pregnancy loss is associated with increased perinatal complications, but not necessarily a longer birth interval: a population study spanning 18 years.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the maternal, neonatal outcomes of the patients with short interdelivery interval (IDI) considering initial pregnancy outcomes. Materials and Methods: Women with two consecutive deliveries between 2016 and 2020 were included in the study. The maternal and neonatal outcomes of both pregnancies were reviewed. The time interval between consecutive deliveries was calculated. The patients were divided into two groups in terms of IDI either less or more than 24 months. Results: The number of patients with short IDI (≤24 months), and normal IDI was 1.915 and 1.370, respectively. About 15% of the women in both groups had at least one obstetric morbidity. The rates of uterine rupture, placenta previa, and peripartum hysterectomy were higher in women with short IDI. The number of patients with low birth weight, very low birth weight, and stillbirth was higher in the short IDI group. Conclusion: Patients with short interpregnancy intervals should be considered high-risk pregnancy. Adequate contraceptive methods should be used to prevent unintended 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.