Cited by 12

Urinary cotinine assessment of maternal smoking and environmental tobacco smoke exposure status and its associations with perinatal outcomes: a cross-sectional birth study

Silva, Ana Inês, Camelo, Alexandra, Madureira, Joana, Reis, Ana Teresa, Machado, Ana Paula, Teixeira, João Paulo, Costa, Carla·2022·Environmental Research

Abstract

Tobacco consumption and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure remains an important public health concern. Pregnant women require particular attention as active and passive smoking during pregnancy are associated with multiple adverse perinatal outcomes. This study aimed to biochemically validate self-reported smoking and ETS exposure status among pregnant women, to more precisely ascertain its association with adverse perinatal outcomes. Data refers to 595 pregnant women who sought prenatal care in a public hospital in Porto, Portugal. A standard questionnaire on smoking and ETS-related variables was completed. Urinary cotinine (UC) concentrations were assessed by solid-phase competitive ELISA, in maternal urine samples collected on the day of delivery. The results showed that the optimal UC cut-off value to distinguish smokers from non-smokers and within non-smokers those who were exposed to ETS from those non-exposed in the third trimester of pregnancy was 74.1 ng/mL (sensitivity and specificity of 96.7% and 98.0%, respectively) and 1.6 ng/mL (sensitivity of 66.2% and specificity of 75.7%, respectively). The agreement between maternal self-reported and UC-based smoking status was very good (κ=0.919, p<0.001), but much lower for ETS exposure (κ=0.386, p<0.001). Maternal active smoking in the third trimester of pregnancy was associated with a significant decrease in birth weight, length and head circumference of 157.66 g (95% CI: -245.81, -69.52; p<0.001), 0.78 cm (95% C…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111827

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Authors
Silva, A. I., Camelo, A., Madureira, J., Reis, A. T., Machado, A. P., Teixeira, J. P., & Costa, C.
Venue
Environmental Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
203
Pages
111827
ISSN
0013-9351
Cited by
12
References
0
Language
en
Funders
  • Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (SFRH/BPD/115112/2016, SFRH/BD/145101/2019, SFRH/BPD/96196/2013, UID/DTP/04750/2019)
  • FAPESP

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review