Trial reportJournal of health, population, and nutrition2023
Comparison of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in a retrospective full pregnancy history survey versus population-based prospective records: a validation study in rural Sarlahi District, Nepal.
Trial report in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and Validity of Mobile Phone-Based Proxy Full Pregnancy History (mPFPH) for Estimating Perinatal Mortality in Rural Northwest Bangladesh.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCountries without complete civil registration and vital statistics systems rely on retrospective full pregnancy history surveys (FPH) to estimate incidence of pregnancy and mortality outcomes, including stillbirth and neonatal death. Yet surveys are subject to biases that impact demographic estimates, and few studies have quantified these effects. We compare data from an FPH vs. prospective records from a population-based cohort to estimate validity for maternal recall of live births, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths in a rural population in Sarlahi District, Nepal.
methodsWe used prospective data, collected through frequent visits of women from early pregnancy through the neonatal period, from a population-based randomized trial spanning 2010-2017. We randomly selected 76 trial participants from three pregnancy outcome groups: live birth (n = 26), stillbirth (n = 25), or neonatal death (n = 25). Data collectors administered the Nepal 2016 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS)-VII pregnancy history survey between October 22, 2021, and November 18, 2021. We compared total pregnancy outcomes and numbers of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes between the two data sources. We matched pregnancy outcomes dates in the two sources within ± 30 days and calculated measures of validity for adverse outcomes.
resultsAmong 76 participants, we recorded 122 pregnancy outcomes in the prospective data and 104 outcomes in the FPH within ± 30 days of each woman's total observation period in the trial. Among 226 outcomes, we observed 65 live births that survived to 28 days, 25 stillbirths, and 32 live births followed by neonatal death in the prospective data and participants reported 63 live births that survived to 28 days, 15 stillbirths, and 26 live births followed by neonatal death in the pregnancy history survey. Sixty-two FPH outcomes were matched by date within ± 30 days to an outcome in prospective data. Stillbirth, neonatal death, higher parity, and delivery at a health facility were associated with likelihood of a non-matched pregnancy outcome.
conclusionsStillbirth and neonatal deaths were underestimated overall by the FPH, potentially underestimating the burden of mortality in this population. There is a need to develop tools to reduce or adjust for biases and errors in retrospective surveys to improve reporting of pregnancy and mortality outcomes.
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.