Time-related Bias When Studying Perinatal Complications After Maternal Injuries: Application to Maternal Injuries and Preterm Birth.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001898
Asma M Ahmed, Allison Musty, Joseph Rigdon, Jennifer A Hutcheon
{"title":"Time-related Bias When Studying Perinatal Complications After Maternal Injuries: Application to Maternal Injuries and Preterm Birth.","authors":"Asma M Ahmed, Allison Musty, Joseph Rigdon, Jennifer A Hutcheon","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Some studies examining associations between maternal injuries and preterm birth reported null or counterintuitive protective effects, especially for 3rd-trimester injuries, likely due to time-related biases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study comprised all births occurring at the Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist health system between 2018 and 2024. We ascertained maternal injuries using validated diagnostic codes and defined preterm birth as gestational age at delivery <37 weeks. We estimated associations between maternal injuries and preterm birth with two approaches. We used logistic regression for time-fixed analysis (injury at any point in pregnancy yes/no and preterm birth yes/no) and Cox proportional hazards models for time-varying analysis (i.e., time-varying injury definition, restricted follow-up to periods when pregnancies were at risk of preterm birth).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 58,897 births, 1,801 women (3.1%) experienced maternal injuries during pregnancy. With the time-varying approach, maternal injuries were associated with increased risk of preterm birth (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01, 1.32). Trimester-specific analyses showed positive associations for all trimesters, with higher effect estimates observed for 2nd and 3rd trimester injuries (adjusted HRs: 1.17; 95% CI = 0.97, 1.42) and 1.22 (95% CI = 0.92, 1.61), respectively. With time-fixed analyses, associations for any injury were underestimated, compared with time-varying analyses, and results for 3rd trimester injuries showed counterintuitive negative associations (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73 [0.54, 0.98]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Time-related biases typically underestimate associations between maternal injuries and preterm birth, particularly for 3rd - trimester injuries. Rigorous study design and analytical methods that account for time-related biases are crucial in studies investigating adverse outcomes after maternal injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"781-790"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001898","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Some studies examining associations between maternal injuries and preterm birth reported null or counterintuitive protective effects, especially for 3rd-trimester injuries, likely due to time-related biases.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study comprised all births occurring at the Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist health system between 2018 and 2024. We ascertained maternal injuries using validated diagnostic codes and defined preterm birth as gestational age at delivery <37 weeks. We estimated associations between maternal injuries and preterm birth with two approaches. We used logistic regression for time-fixed analysis (injury at any point in pregnancy yes/no and preterm birth yes/no) and Cox proportional hazards models for time-varying analysis (i.e., time-varying injury definition, restricted follow-up to periods when pregnancies were at risk of preterm birth).

Results: Among 58,897 births, 1,801 women (3.1%) experienced maternal injuries during pregnancy. With the time-varying approach, maternal injuries were associated with increased risk of preterm birth (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01, 1.32). Trimester-specific analyses showed positive associations for all trimesters, with higher effect estimates observed for 2nd and 3rd trimester injuries (adjusted HRs: 1.17; 95% CI = 0.97, 1.42) and 1.22 (95% CI = 0.92, 1.61), respectively. With time-fixed analyses, associations for any injury were underestimated, compared with time-varying analyses, and results for 3rd trimester injuries showed counterintuitive negative associations (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73 [0.54, 0.98]).

Conclusions: Time-related biases typically underestimate associations between maternal injuries and preterm birth, particularly for 3rd - trimester injuries. Rigorous study design and analytical methods that account for time-related biases are crucial in studies investigating adverse outcomes after maternal injuries.

研究产妇损伤后围产儿并发症时的时间相关偏差:应用于产妇损伤和早产。
背景:一些研究调查了母亲损伤和早产之间的关系,报告了无效或违反直觉的保护作用,特别是对妊娠晚期的损伤,可能是由于时间相关的偏见。方法:本回顾性队列研究包括2018年至2024年间在Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist卫生系统出生的所有新生儿。我们使用有效的诊断代码确定产妇损伤,并将早产定义为分娩时的胎龄。结果:在58,897例分娩中,1,801名妇女(3.1%)在怀孕期间经历了产妇损伤。采用时变方法,产妇损伤与早产风险增加相关(校正风险比(HR): 1.16 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.32)。妊娠期特异性分析显示所有妊娠期均呈正相关,在妊娠第二和第三期损伤中观察到较高的效应估计(调整hr分别为1.17 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.42)和1.22 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.61))。与时变分析相比,与时间固定分析相比,任何损伤的关联都被低估了,妊娠晚期损伤的结果显示出与直觉相反的负相关(校正优势比:0.73(0.54,0.98))。结论:时间相关的偏见通常低估了母亲损伤和早产之间的关系,特别是在妊娠晚期损伤。严谨的研究设计和分析方法,解释时间相关的偏差是至关重要的研究调查产妇受伤后的不良后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信