Birth Spacing—The Long and Short of It
Rachel A. Royce, PhD, MPH
JAMA. 2006;295:1837-1838.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Worldwide, more than 4 million children die in the first 4 weeks of life, and 28% of these deaths are thought to be due directly to preterm birth.1-2 Reducing child mortality by 2015 is one of 8 goals in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by more than 180 nations.3 Birth spacing is mentioned in the strategies set out to achieve the goals but its potential seems underemphasized.
In this issue of JAMA, Conde-Agudelo and colleagues4 report the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies investigating the association between interpregnancy interval and untoward perinatal health events that are entwined with neonatal mortality.
The authors amassed an impressive amount of cross-cultural evidence to firmly establish the J-shaped relationship between risk of adverse reproductive outcomes and interpregnancy intervals that are either short or long. A total of 67 studies including more than 11 . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Author Affiliation: Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, NC.
RELATED ARTICLE
Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis.
, , and
JAMA. ;295():1809-1823.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Re: "Risk of Oral Clefts in Relation to Prepregnancy Weight Change and Interpregnancy Interval"
Smits and Hukkelhoven
Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:1092-1093.
FULL TEXT
|
