Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38700432›Full record

SynthesisJournal of global health2024

Short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tahir Ahmed Hassen, Catherine Chojenta, Md Nuruzzaman Khan, Desalegn Markos Shifti, Melissa Leigh Harris

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Tahir Ahmed HassenCentre for Women's Health Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Catherine ChojentaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Md Nuruzzaman KhanCentre for Women's Health Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Desalegn Markos ShiftiCentre for Women's Health Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Melissa Leigh HarrisCentre for Women's Health Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Short birth interval is associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes for mothers and children. Despite this, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence on short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region. Thus, this study aimed to synthesise evidence related to the definition, classification, prevalence, and predictors of short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region. Methods: Five databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Maternity and Infant Care, and Web of Science) were searched for studies published between September 2000 and May 2023 (the last search was conducted for all databases in May 2023). We included original studies published in English that reported on short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region. Studies that combined birth interval with birth order, used multi-country data and were published as conference abstracts and commentaries were excluded. Three independent reviewers screened the articles for relevancy, and two reviewers performed the data extraction and quality assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. The findings were both qualitatively and quantitatively synthesised and presented. Results: A total of 140 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. About 58% (n = 82) of the studies defined short birth interval, while 42% (n = 58) did not. Out of 82 studies, nearly half (n = 39) measured a birth-to-birth interval, 37 studies measured a birth-to-pregnancy, four measured a pregnancy-to-pregnancy, and two studies measured a pregnancy loss-to-conception. Approximately 39% (n = 55) and 6% (n = 8) of studies classified short birth intervals as <24 months and <33 months, respectively. Most of the included studies were cross-sectional, and about two-thirds had either medium or high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence of short birth interval was 33.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 23.0-44.6, I Conclusions: This review's findings highlighted significant variations in the definition, measurement, classification, and reported prevalence of short birth interval across the included studies. Future research is needed to harmonise the definition and classification of short birth interval to ensure consistency and comparability across studies and facilitate the development of targeted interventions and policies. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023426975.

Indexed as

Birth IntervalsAsiaFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPacific IslandsPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38700432
PMCPMC11067827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.