ArticleHealth science reports2024
Interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal outcomes: A within-individual comparative method.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. 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.
- Interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal outcomes: A within-individual comparative method.Health science reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aim: Previously observed associations between interpregnancy interval (IPI) and perinatal outcomes using a between-individual method may be confounded by unmeasured maternal factors. This study aims to examine the association between IPI and adverse perinatal outcomes using within-individual comparative analyses. Methods: We studied 10,647 individuals from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Consecutive Pregnancies Study in Utah with ≥3 liveborn singleton pregnancies. We matched two IPIs per individual and used conditional logistic regression to examine the association between IPI and adverse perinatal outcomes, including preterm birth (PTB, <37 weeks' gestation), small-for-gestational-age (SGA, <10th percentile of sex-specific birthweight for gestational age), low birthweight (LBW, <2,500 g), and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Point and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimates were adjusted for factors that vary across pregnancies within individuals. Results: CIs did not unequivocally support either an increase or a decrease in the odds of PTB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.96), SGA (aOR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.51, 1.28), LBW (aOR: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.90, 2.80), or NICU admission (aOR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.40) for an IPI <6 months compared to 18-23-months IPI (reference), and neither did the CIs for the aOR of IPIs of 6-11 and 12-18 months compared to the reference. In contrast, an IPI ≥24 months was associated with increased odds of LBW (aOR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.66 for 24-29 months; aOR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.21, 4.29 for 30-35 months; and aOR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.17, 3.72 for ≥36 months). Conclusions: Using a within-individual comparative method, we did not find evidence that a short IPI compared to the recommended IPI of 18-23 months was associated with increased odds of PTB, SGA, LBW, and NICU admission. IPI ≥ 24 months was associated with increased odds of delivering an LBW infant.
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.