Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse maternal outcomes in high‐resource settings: An updated systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, no federal guidelines provide recommendations on healthy birth spacing for women in the United States. This systematic review summarises associations between short interpregnancy intervals and adverse maternal outcomes to inform the development of birth spacing recommendations for the United States. METHODS: PubMed/Medline, POPLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and a previous systematic review were searched to identify relevant articles published from 1 January 2006 and 1 May 2017. Included studies reported maternal health outcomes following a short versus longer interpregnancy interval, were conducted in high-resource settings, and adjusted estimates for at least maternal age. Two investigators independently assessed study quality and applicability using established methods. RESULTS: Seven cohort studies met inclusion criteria. There was limited but consistent evidence that short interpregnancy interval is associated with increased risk of precipitous labour and decreased risks of labour dystocia. There was some evidence that short interpregnancy interval is associated with increased risks of subsequent pre-pregnancy obesity and gestational diabetes, and decreased risk of preeclampsia. Among women with a previous caesarean delivery, short interpregnancy interval was associated with increased risk of uterine rupture in one study. No studies reported outcomes related to maternal depression, interpregnancy weight gain, maternal anaemia, or maternal mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In studies from high-resource settings, short interpregnancy intervals are associated with both increased and decreased risks of adverse maternal outcomes. However, most outcomes were evaluated in single studies, and the strength of evidence supporting associations is low.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".