SynthesisJournal of global health2024
Short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.
- 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
- Predicting short birth intervals in Bangladesh using stacked machine learning and SHAP explainability: evidence from BDHS 2022.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Article
- Magnitude of short birth intervals and associated factors among reproductive-age women in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel modified Poisson regression analysis of recent DHS data (2021-2024).Contraception and reproductive medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.