ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
The association between sleep and fecundability: a Danish preconception cohort study.
Article in European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
We estimated the effects of sleep duration, trouble sleeping, and job time (day, evening, shift, and night work) on fecundability, the per-cycle probability of conception. We analysed data from a preconception cohort study of 10 475 Danish females aged 18-45 years attempting to conceive. On baseline questionnaires, females reported on sleep duration (hours/day), trouble sleeping (never, sometimes, approx. 50% of the time, most of the time), and job time. Pregnancy status was ascertained from follow-up questionnaires completed every 8 weeks for up to 12 months. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs), adjusted for potential confounders. Compared with 8 h/day of sleep, FRs were 0.94 for ≤6 h/day (95% CI, 0.83-1.08), 0.97 for 7 h/day (95% CI, 0.89-1.06), and 0.96 for ≥9 h/day (95% CI, 0.81-1.13). Compared with no trouble sleeping, FRs were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.94-1.06) for trouble sleeping sometimes, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.86-1.03) for trouble sleeping approx. 50% of the time, and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.82-1.10) for trouble sleeping most of the time. Relative to day work, FRs were 1.12 for shift work (95% CI, 1.04-1.20), 0.77 for night work (95% CI, 0.49-1.22) and 1.10 for evening work (95% CI, 0.91-1.33). Self-reported sleep duration and trouble sleeping were not appreciably associated with fecundability. Shift work was associated with a slightly higher fecundability, while night work was associated with slightly lower fecundability, although associations were imprecise. Potential limitations include misclassification of sleep and residual or unmeasured confounding.
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.