ArticlePediatric research2026
Insights into the validity of concurrent and retrospective maternal report of infant smoke exposure using biomarker-based validation.
Article in Pediatric research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of early-life exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) often relies on retrospective maternal report. We evaluated the validity of such reports up to 17 years later in dyads with prenatal and/or household smoke exposure.
methodsBaby's Breath was a randomized controlled trial of a smoke avoidance intervention among 738 pregnant women and their infants followed through 6 months postpartum (2006-2009). Mothers reported their own smoking and infant ETS exposure at 6 months postpartum; bioverified with salivary cotinine. Pathways recruited 109 dyads from Baby's Breath when children reached adolescence (2021-2026). Mothers retrospectively reported infant ETS exposure. Positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa, and cotinine levels across self-report categories were computed for maternal self-report of smoking and both concurrent and retrospective report of infant ETS exposure.
resultsMaternal self-reported smoking was concordant with bioverified cotinine whereas both concurrent and retrospective maternal reports of infant ETS exposure were not. The predictive value of retrospective reporting depended entirely on how exposure was characterized.
conclusionIn this cohort of families with smoke exposure, postpartum maternal reports of their own smoking closely aligned with bioverified cotinine, whereas concurrent and retrospective reports of infant ETS exposure showed poor concordance. IMPACT: Longitudinal validation of maternal retrospective reports of infant ETS exposure, using bioverified cotinine data, revealed systematic recall bias. Mothers accurately recalled confirmed exposure up to 17 years later but frequently denied or underestimated it when biomarkers indicated otherwise. Reports were sensitive to acknowledged exposure but showed poor specificity for non-exposure, increasing misclassification risk. These findings urge caution when using retrospective reports in etiologic research and underscore the importance of biomarker validation.
Identifiers
42469417What 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.