Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37015793›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2023

Assessing the effects of duration of birth interval on adverse pregnancy outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Getayeneh Antehunegn Tesema, Achamyeleh Birhanu Teshale, Yigizie Yeshaw, Dessie Abebaw Angaw, Ayenew Lakew Molla

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Getayeneh Antehunegn TesemaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia getayenehantehunegn@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6812-1659
Achamyeleh Birhanu TeshaleDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-7572-9993
Yigizie YeshawMedical Physiology, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-4587-7925
Dessie Abebaw AngawDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Public Health, Gondar University, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0001-9827-2255
Ayenew Lakew MollaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Gondar College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-3648-9891
University of Gondar · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUnlike high-income countries, sub-Saharan African countries have the highest burden of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as abortion, stillbirth, low birth weight and preterm births. The WHO set optimal birth spacing as a key strategy to improve pregnancy outcomes. Estimating the impact of short and long birth intervals on adverse pregnancy outcomes based on an observational study like the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) is prone to selection bias. Therefore, we used the propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to estimate the actual impact of short and long birth intervals on adverse pregnancy outcomes.

designA community-based cross-sectional study was conducted based on the DHS data.

settingWe used the recent DHS data of 36 sub-Saharan African countries.

participantsA total of 302 580 pregnant women for stillbirth and abortion, 153 431 for birth weight and 115 556 births for preterm births were considered. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To estimate the impact of duration of birth interval (short/long) on adverse pregnancy outcomes, we used PSM analysis with logit model using

resultsThe prevalence of short and long birth intervals in sub-Saharan Africa was 46.85% and 13.61%, respectively. The prevalence rates of abortion, stillbirth, low birth weight, macrosomia, and preterm births were 6.11%, 0.84%, 9.63%, 9.04%, and 4.87%, respectively. In the PSM analysis, the differences in ATE of short birth intervals on abortion, stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm births were 0.5%, 0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.4%, respectively, and -2.6% for macrosomia. The difference in ATE among the treated group was 1%, 1%, and 1.1% increased risk of abortion, low birth weight, and preterm births, respectively, while there was no difference in risk of stillbirth between the treated and control groups. The ATEs of long birth intervals on abortion, stillbirth, low birth weight, macrosomia and preterm births were 1.3%, 0.4%, 1.0%, 3.4%, and 0.2%, respectively. The ATE on the treated group had 0.9%, 0.4%, 2.4%, 2.8%, and 0.2% increased risk of abortion, stillbirth, low birth weight, macrosomia, and preterm births, respectively. The estimates were insensitive to hidden bias and had a good quality of matching.

conclusionShort and long birth intervals had a significant positive impact on stillbirth, abortion, low birth weight, macrosomia and preterm births after matching treated and control groups by observed variables. These findings highlighted maternal and newborn healthcare programmes and policies to empower reproductive-aged women to exercise optimal birth spacing to reduce the incidence of stillbirth, abortion, low birth weight, macrosomia and preterm births.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousPremature BirthAdultBirth IntervalsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFetal MacrosomiaHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePropensity ScoreStillbirthEPIDEMIOLOGYOBSTETRICSPUBLIC HEALTHReproductive medicine

Identifiers

PMID37015793
PMCPMC10083766
OpenAlexW4362593395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.