ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Observation and modeling of fertility loss attributable to natural disasters from 1990-2021.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNatural disasters have increasingly threatened population health, but their global impacts on fertility remain uncertain. This study aims to quantify global fertility loss attributable to natural disasters and its socioeconomic disparities.
methodsWe conducted a two-stage analysis using disaster records from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and total fertility rate (TFR) and net reproductive rate (NRR) data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 database. First, we used country-year panel data to assess exposure-response functions. Second, we estimated spatiotemporal distributions and inequalities of global, regional, and national fertility losses attributable to natural disasters.
resultsHere we show that, globally, floods and storms contribute to annual TFR losses of 103.79 and 38.75 per 100,000 women of childbearing age. Flood-attributable TFR loss is most pronounced in South Asia, particularly in low-SDI and low-income countries, whereas storm-attributable TFR loss is greater in high-SDI and middle-income countries. For NRR, epidemics, storms, floods, and earthquakes contribute to losses of 35.26, 32.36, 31.96, and 24.53 per 100,000 women of childbearing age annually. South Asia shows the highest NRR losses attributable to floods, storms, and earthquakes, whereas Sub-Saharan Africa shows the highest epidemic-attributable NRR loss. Epidemic- and flood-attributable NRR losses are higher in low-SDI and low-income countries, whereas earthquake- and storm-attributable NRR losses are higher in middle- to high-SDI and income countries.
conclusionFloods, storms, earthquakes, and epidemics contribute to significant fertility loss worldwide, with geographical and socioeconomic disparities. Regions prone to these disasters should implement local-specific reproductive health strategies to maintain sustainable demographic structures.
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.