Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2025

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Birth spacing and risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
Wanze Ni1, Xuping Gao1, Xin Su1
1Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Introduction:
The association between extreme birth spacing and adverse outcomes is controversial, and available evidence is fragmented into different classifications of birth spacing.
Material And Methods:
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies to evaluate the association between birth spacing (i.e., interpregnancy interval and interoutcome interval) and adverse outcomes (i.e., pregnancy complications, adverse birth outcomes). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, and the dose-response relationships were evaluated using generalized least squares trend estimation.
Results:
A total of 129 studies involving 46 874 843 pregnancies were included. In the general population, compared with an interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months, extreme intervals (<6 months and ≥ 60 months) were associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birthweight, fetal death, birth defects, early neonatal death, and premature rupture of fetal membranes (pooled OR range: 1.08-1.56; p < 0.05). The dose-response analyses further confirmed these J-shaped relationships (pnon-linear < 0.001-0.009). Long interpregnancy interval was only associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia and gestational diabetes (pnon-linear < 0.005 and pnon-linear < 0.001, respectively). Similar associations were observed between interoutcome interval and risk of low birthweight and preterm birth (pnon-linear < 0.001). Moreover, interoutcome interval of ≥60 months was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery (pooled OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.04-2.83). For pregnancies following preterm births, an interpregnancy interval of 9 months was not associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, according to dose-response analyses (pnon-linear = 0.008). Based on limited evidence, we did not observe significant associations between interpregnancy interval or interoutcome interval after pregnancy losses and risk of small for gestational age, fetal death, miscarriage, or preeclampsia (pooled OR range: 0.76-1.21; p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
Extreme birth spacing has extensive adverse effects on maternal and infant health. In the general population, interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months may be associated with potential benefits for both mothers and infants. For women with previous preterm birth, the optimal birth spacing may be 9 months.
More Related Videos
09:04Comprehensive Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Safety of Placenta-Targeted Drug Delivery Using Three Complementary Methods
Published on: September 10, 2018
06:11Author Spotlight: Exploring the Long-Term Health Impacts of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection on Offspring
Published on: May 17, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Types 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,...
Teratogenicity
Factors Affecting Drug Response: Overview
Regression Toward the Mean
Birth Control Methods
Odds Ratio