14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Miscarriage Among Flight Attendants :

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients.

          It is common to present multiple adjusted effect estimates from a single model in a single table. For example, a table might show odds ratios for one or more exposures and also for several confounders from a single logistic regression. This can lead to mistaken interpretations of these estimates. We use causal diagrams to display the sources of the problems. Presentation of exposure and confounder effect estimates from a single model may lead to several interpretative difficulties, inviting confusion of direct-effect estimates with total-effect estimates for covariates in the model. These effect estimates may also be confounded even though the effect estimate for the main exposure is not confounded. Interpretation of these effect estimates is further complicated by heterogeneity (variation, modification) of the exposure effect measure across covariate levels. We offer suggestions to limit potential misunderstandings when multiple effect estimates are presented, including precise distinction between total and direct effect measures from a single model, and use of multiple models tailored to yield total-effect estimates for covariates.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A systematic review to calculate background miscarriage rates using life table analysis.

            The objectives of the current study were to calculate: (1) the expected rates of miscarriage by gestational week; (2) the cumulative risk of miscarriage; and (3) the remaining risk of miscarriage for gestational weeks five through 20, through a systematic review of the literature. We searched MEDLINE for articles published in English through the end of 2009. References of articles were also searched. Four studies were identified to have the three necessary pieces of information for the proposed calculations: (1) gestational age at study entry, (2) pregnancy outcome; and (3) the gestational age at which the pregnancy outcome occurred. Data were extracted from each study and Life Table Analysis Methods were conducted. Weekly miscarriage rates varied in the early gestational weeks with the highest rate documented at >20 miscarriages per 1000 women-weeks at each week of gestation prior to week 13. By week 14, the rate for all studies became relatively comparable and fell below 10 miscarriages per 1000 woman-weeks at risk and fell even lower through week 20. The cumulative risk of miscarriage for weeks 5 through 20 of gestation ranged from 11 miscarriages per 100 women to 22 miscarriages per 100 women (11-22%). Based on data from comparable study populations, a range of background miscarriage rates by week of gestation for weeks 5 through 20, the cumulative risk of miscarriage, and the remaining risk of miscarriage are presented. Wider variation of miscarriage rates and risks occurred early in gestation (<14 weeks). Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Secondhand smoke and adverse fetal outcomes in nonsmoking pregnant women: a meta-analysis.

              To determine the risk of adverse fetal outcomes of secondhand smoke exposure in nonsmoking pregnant women. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. We searched Medline and Embase (to March 2009) and reference lists for eligible studies; no language restrictions were imposed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by using random-effect models. Our search was for epidemiologic studies of maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy in nonsmoking pregnant women. The main outcome measures were spontaneous abortion, perinatal and neonatal death, stillbirth, and congenital malformations. We identified 19 studies that assessed the effects of secondhand smoke exposure in nonsmoking pregnant women. We found no evidence of a statistically significant effect of secondhand smoke exposure on the risk of spontaneous abortion (OR: 1.17 [95% CI: 0.88-1.54]; 6 studies). However, secondhand smoke exposure significantly increased the risk of stillbirth (OR: 1.23 [95% CI: 1.09-1.38]; 4 studies) and congenital malformation (OR: 1.13 [95% CI: 1.01-1.26]; 7 studies), although none of the associations with specific congenital abnormalities were individually significant. Secondhand smoke exposure had no significant effect on perinatal or neonatal death. Pregnant women who are exposed to secondhand smoke are estimated to be 23% more likely to experience stillbirth and 13% more likely give birth to a child with a congenital malformation. Because the timing and mechanism of this effect is not clear, it is important to prevent secondhand smoke exposure in women before and during pregnancy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Epidemiology
                Epidemiology
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1044-3983
                2015
                March 2015
                : 26
                : 2
                : 192-203
                Article
                10.1097/EDE.0000000000000225
                25563432
                2f08a494-b903-45af-8e7f-a9c7944aaabc
                © 2015
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article