ArticleBMC public health2025
The optimal childbearing age and birth spacing in china: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prenatal n-3 LC-PUFA intake and the incidence of allergic diseases in offspring: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing the impact of China's universal two-child policy on infant health: evidence from a quasi-experimental study.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- Ideal birth spacing between the first and second child among reproductive-aged women in Shandong Province, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in Nanning, Guangxi, China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to comprehensively analyze the impact of both maternal age and birth spacing on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsA total of 151,301 pregnancies in China from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021 were included, and 8,222 subjects matched their primary and second pregnancy information. Join point regression was used to analyze the temporal trends of adverse outcomes with maternal age and birth spacing.
resultsThe mean maternal age at delivery rose from 27.1 years to 28.5 between 2010 and 2021, and the average annual percentage change in advanced maternal age (≥ 35 years) was 1.2%. The optimal childbearing age (with the fewest adverse outcomes) appears to be 27 years. Compared with women aged 27 years, both those aged < 27 years and those aged > 27 years exhibited a significantly higher risk of anemia, low birth weight (LBW), preeclampsia, and preterm birth. In addition, we found that the optimal primiparous childbearing age was 26 years old and birth spacing was 3 years, < 3 years increased the risk of FGR, oligohydramnios, placenta previa, preeclampsia, LBW, preterm birth and premature rupture of membranes (PROM). While birth spacing > 3 years significantly increased the risks of anemia, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), placenta previa, preeclampsia, thyroid dysfunction (TD), preterm birth and PROM. The subgroup analysis revealed that the common adverse outcomes increased with longer birth spacing in pregnant women < 26 years, while these adverse outcomes showed lowest prevalence rates at 3-year birth spacing in pregnant women > 26 years.
conclusionsThe age of childbearing continues to be delayed, and we are in favor of having children at relatively optimal ages and spacing.
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.