Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7629471›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health1995

A time to pregnancy questionnaire designed for long term recall: validity in Oxford, England.

M Joffe, L Villard, Z Li, R Plowman, M Vessey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Trends in time-to-pregnancy in the USA: 2002 to 2017.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Gulf oil spill, miscarriage, and infertility: the GROWH study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M JoffeAcademic Department of Public Health, St Mary's Hospital Medical School, London.
L Villard
Z Li
R Plowman
M Vessey

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveTo establish the degree of validity of data on time to pregnancy, derived retrospectively using a short questionnaire.

designInformation from the questionnaire was compared with data that had been collected concurrently from the same individuals. SETTING AND

participantsQuestionnaires were mailed to 1647 women who continue to be followed up by the Oxford Family Planning Association contraceptive study, and a further 424 were approached for personal interview. Response rates were 91% and 79% respectively. MAIN

resultsMatching was successful in 91% of pregnancies. Median recall time was 14 years (interquartile range, 11-16 years). At the group level, remarkably good agreement was found between the two sources of information, presented as cumulative percentage distributions of live births. The findings were at least as good with longer recall (> 14 years) as with shorter recall. Digit performance was present to a limited degree. At the individual level, some misclassification was evident, which has implications for statistical power. For detection of clinical infertility (no conception within 12 months), the sensitivity was in the range 67%-91%, and the specificity was 92%-96%. Variations with format, duration of recall, age at delivery, year of birth, parity, social class, smoking habit, last contraceptive method, and outcome (live birth or not) were generally small, and were not statistically significant.

conclusionsTime to pregnancy is a sensitive way of assessing reproductive function in either sex. Valid data at a group level can be derived retrospectively, with a long duration of recall, using a short questionnaire.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalFertilityPregnancyAdultDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID7629471
PMCPMC1060805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.