Short interpregnancy interval and pregnancy outcomes: How important is the timing of confounding variable ascertainment?

Interpregnancy interval and preterm delivery: An empirical comparison of between-persons and within-sibship designs

BACKGROUND

Short interpregnancy interval has been associated with increased risk of preterm delivery; recent studies employing within-sibship designs suggest that this risk may be exaggerated. There are unresolved issues regarding properties of this design.

OBJECTIVES

To compare directly the results, for short intervals, of between-person and within-sibship analyses when applied to the same target population.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data are from the National Survey of Family Growth, a statistically representative survey of women and men in the USA, 2006-2015. Participants provided a complete pregnancy history including outcome, duration and ending date, enabling calculation of interval. Conventional analysis employed log-linear regression, controlling survey design, early life events, demographic variables, pregnancy intendedness, breastfeeding of the previous birth and obstetric history. Within-sibship analyses, utilising conditional log-linear regression, controlled the same variables, except those remaining static within each participant.

RESULTS

Among participants with at least three live- or stillbirths, the percentage of pregnancies in each interval, and the percent of deliveries that were preterm following that interval were 9.2%, 14.6% for <6, and 14.7%, 15.4% for 6-11, versus 12.2%, 14.7% for 18-23 months. Among participants with at least three live- or stillborn infants, those in the within-sibship analysis had a higher risk profile than comparably parous, ineligible participants. In a between-participant analysis, among those included in within-sibship models, the adjusted risk ratios (vs 18-23 months) for preterm delivery for intervals <6 and 6-11 months were 0.74 (95% CI 0.63, 0.88) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.74, 0.98). The corresponding risk ratios were 0.56 (95% CI 0.14, 2.30) and 0.49 (95% CI 0.13, 1.80) for those ineligible for the within-sibship models.

CONCLUSIONS

When comparable analyses were employed, the association between interval and preterm delivery was similar between participants included in the within-sibship analysis and those ineligible for the within-sibship analysis, but differed from those in the full cohort, perhaps due to different target populations.

Short interpregnancy interval can lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of some previous papers was insufficient in studying the causal association between interpregnancy interval (IPI) and adverse pregnancy outcomes. In addition, more literature have been updated worldwide during the last 10 years.

METHODS

English and Chinese articles published from January 1980 to August 2021 in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched. Then following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we screened the articles. Utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), we evaluated the quality of the included articles. The literature information extraction table was set up in Excel, and the meta-analysis was performed with Stata 16.0 software (Texas, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 41 articles were included in the meta-analysis, and NOS scores were four to eight. The short IPI after delivery was the risk factor of preterm birth (pooled odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.42-1.57), very preterm birth (pooled OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.55-2.14), low birth weight (pooled OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.24-1.43), and small for gestational age (pooled OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07-1.21), offspring death (pooled OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.51-1.69), NICU (pooled OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.01-1.57), and congenital abnormality (pooled OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.05-1.16), while was not the risk factor of gestational hypertension (pooled OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.98) or gestational diabetes (pooled OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.93-1.20).

CONCLUSION

Short IPI (IPI < 6 months) can lead to adverse perinatal outcomes, while it is not a risk factor for gestational diabetes and gestational hypertension. Therefore, more high-quality studies covering more comprehensive indicators of maternal and perinatal pregnancy outcomes are needed to ameliorate the pregnancy policy for women of childbearing age.

Interpregnancy interval and adverse pregnancy outcomes among pregnancies following miscarriages or induced abortions in Norway (2008-2016): A cohort study

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization recommends to wait at least 6 months after miscarriage and induced abortion before becoming pregnant again to avoid complications in the next pregnancy, although the evidence-based underlying this recommendation is scarce. We aimed to investigate the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes-preterm birth (PTB), spontaneous PTB, small for gestational age (SGA) birth, large for gestational age (LGA) birth, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)-by interpregnancy interval (IPI) for births following a previous miscarriage or induced abortion.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cohort study using a total of 49,058 births following a previous miscarriage and 23,707 births following a previous induced abortion in Norway between 2008 and 2016. We modeled the relationship between IPI and 6 adverse pregnancy outcomes separately for births after miscarriages and births after induced abortions. We used log-binomial regression to estimate unadjusted and adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the adjusted model, we included maternal age, gravidity, and year of birth measured at the time of the index (after interval) births. In a sensitivity analysis, we further adjusted for smoking during pregnancy and prepregnancy body mass index. Compared to births with an IPI of 6 to 11 months after miscarriages (10.1%), there were lower risks of SGA births among births with an IPI of <3 months (8.6%) (aRR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.92, p < 0.01) and 3 to 5 months (9.0%) (aRR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97, p = 0.01). An IPI of <3 months after a miscarriage (3.3%) was also associated with lower risk of GDM (aRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.96, p = 0.01) as compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (4.5%). For births following an induced abortion, an IPI <3 months (11.5%) was associated with a nonsignificant but increased risk of SGA (aRR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.36, p = 0.07) as compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (10.0%), while the risk of LGA was lower among those with an IPI 3 to 5 months (8.0%) (aRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.98, p = 0.03) compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (9.4%). There was no observed association between adverse pregnancy outcomes with an IPI >12 months after either a miscarriage or induced abortion (p > 0.05), with the exception of an increased risk of GDM among women with an IPI of 12 to 17 months (5.8%) (aRR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.40, p = 0.02), 18 to 23 months (6.2%) (aRR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.50, p = 0.03), and ≥24 months (6.4%) (aRR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.34, p = 0.10) compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (4.5%) after a miscarriage. Inherent to retrospective registry-based studies, we did not have information on potential confounders such as pregnancy intention and health-seeking bahaviour. Furthermore, we only had information on miscarriages that resulted in contact with the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that conceiving within 3 months after a miscarriage or an induced abortion is not associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. In combination with previous research, these results suggest that women could attempt pregnancy soon after a previous miscarriage or induced abortion without increasing perinatal health risks.

The confounder matrix: A tool to assess confounding bias in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential for drawing conclusions regarding etiologic associations between exposures or interventions and health outcomes. Observational studies comprise a substantive source of the evidence base. One major threat to their validity is residual confounding, which may occur when component studies adjust for different sets of confounders, fail to control for important confounders, or have classification errors resulting in only partial control of measured confounders. We present the confounder matrix-an approach for defining and summarizing adequate confounding control in systematic reviews of observational studies and incorporating this assessment into meta-analyses. First, an expert group reaches consensus regarding the core confounders that should be controlled and the best available method for their measurement. Second, a matrix graphically depicts how each component study accounted for each confounder. Third, the assessment of control adequacy informs quantitative synthesis. We illustrate the approach with studies of the association between short interpregnancy intervals and preterm birth. Our findings suggest that uncontrolled confounding, notably by reproductive history and sociodemographics, resulted in exaggerated estimates. Moreover, no studies adequately controlled for all core confounders, so we suspect residual confounding is present, even among studies with better control. The confounder matrix serves as an extension of previously published methodological guidance for observational research synthesis, enabling transparent reporting of confounding control and directly informing meta-analysis so that conclusions are drawn from the best available evidence. Widespread application could raise awareness about gaps across a body of work and allow for more valid inference with respect to confounder control.