SynthesisBMJ open2024
Association between preconception care and family planning and previous adverse birth outcomes in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInconsistent findings on the associations of preconception care with the utilisation of family planning and previous adverse birth outcomes have not been systematically reviewed in Ethiopia. Thus, this review aims to estimate the pooled association of preconception care with the utilisation of family planning and previous adverse birth outcomes in Ethiopia.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, Scopus and Global Health were searched from inception to 28 July 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational studies that reported preconception care as an outcome variable and the use of family planning before pregnancy or previous adverse birth outcomes as exposure variables were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently conducted study screening, data extraction and quality assessment. A fixed-effects model was used to determine the pooled association of preconception care with the utilisation of family planning and previous adverse birth outcomes.
resultsEight studies involving a total of 3829 participants were included in the review. The pooled meta-analysis found that women with a history of family planning use had a higher likelihood of using preconception care (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.52) than those women who did not use family planning before their current pregnancy. Likewise, the pooled meta-analysis found that women with prior adverse birth outcomes had a higher chance of using preconception care (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.06 to 10.74) than women with no history of prior adverse birth outcomes.
conclusionThis review indicated that utilisation of preconception care had a positive association with previous use of family planning and prior adverse birth outcomes. Thus, policymakers and other relevant stakeholders should strengthen the integration of preconception care with family planning and other maternal healthcare services. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023443855.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.