ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Birth certificate measures of maternal morbidity and their limits in abortion policy research.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three indicators of severe maternal morbidity (SMM) available in US birth certificate data are increasingly used in research, yet prior studies suggest they are poorly ascertained. It is unclear whether low validity of these data threatens causal inference in evaluations of policies or shocks that vary across states and over time, including abortion bans enacted after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. Using birth certificate and hospital discharge data from 12 states (2018-2021), we assessed data quality for three SMM indicators (hysterectomy, blood transfusion, and eclampsia) and a composite measure and compared state-year trends across six states that subsequently imposed abortion bans shortly after the Dobbs decision and six that did not, including tests of the parallel trends assumption. Compared with hospitalization data, birth certificates under-ascertained hysterectomy, blood transfusion, and the composite measure while over-ascertaining eclampsia. Composite SMM rates appeared higher in abortion-ban states using birth certificate data but were similar or lower in hospitalization data. Over time, birth certificate ascertainment improved in states with bans but remained flat elsewhere, potentially introducing data artifacts. Violations of the parallel trends assumption were detected in hospitalization but not birth certificate data. Reliance on birth certificate data for policy evaluation can produce erroneous inferences.
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.