Short interpregnancy interval and pregnancy outcomes: How important is the timing of confounding variable
Laura Schummers1, Jennifer A Hutcheon2, Wendy V Norman1,3
1Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Background:
Estimation of causal effects of short interpregnancy interval on pregnancy outcomes may be confounded by time-varying factors. These confounders should be ascertained at or before delivery of the first ("index") pregnancy, but are often only measured at the subsequent pregnancy.
Objectives:
To quantify bias induced by adjusting for time-varying confounders ascertained at the subsequent (rather than the index) pregnancy in estimated effects of short interpregnancy interval on pregnancy outcomes.
Methods:
We analysed linked records for births in British Columbia, Canada, 2004-2014, to women with ≥2 singleton pregnancies (n = 121 151). We used log binomial regression to compare short (<6, 6-11, 12-17 months) to 18-23-month reference intervals for 5 outcomes: perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal death); small for gestational age (SGA) birth and preterm delivery (all, early, spontaneous). We calculated per cent differences between adjusted risk ratios (aRR) from two models with maternal age, low socio-economic status, body mass index, and smoking ascertained in the index pregnancy and the subsequent pregnancy. We considered relative per cent differences <5% minimal, 5%-9% modest, and ≥10% substantial.
Results:
Adjustment for confounders measured at the subsequent pregnancy introduced modest bias towards the null for perinatal mortality aRRs for <6-month interpregnancy intervals [-9.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.3, -6.2). SGA aRRs were minimally biased towards the null (-1.1%, 95% CI -2.6, 0.8) for <6-month intervals. While early preterm delivery aRRs were substantially biased towards the null (-10.4%, 95% CI -14.0, -6.6) for <6-month interpregnancy intervals, bias was minimal for <6-month intervals for all preterm deliveries (-0.6%, 95% CI -2.0, 0.8) and spontaneous preterm deliveries (-1.3%, 95% CI -3.1, 0.1). For all outcomes, bias was attenuated and minimal for 6-11-month and 12-17-month interpregnancy intervals.
Conclusion:
These findings suggest that maternally linked pregnancy data may not be needed for appropriate confounder adjustment when studying the effects of short interpregnancy interval on pregnancy outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
01:25Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
01:27Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:15Assumptions of Survival Analysis
01:03Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies