Cited by 394Prenatal Substance Exposure EffectsPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisSmoking Behavior and Cessation

A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies on the association between maternal cigarette smoking and preterm delivery

Open access
Shah, Nirav R., Bracken, Michael B.·2000·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

We have attempted to quantify the most up-to-date estimate of the association between cigarette smoking by the mother and preterm delivery. Studies were selected for inclusion in this review if they were prospective, reported data stratified across at least two levels of maternal smoking, and defined preterm delivery on the basis of gestational age. In a meta-analysis we combined results from multiple studies that reported on preterm delivery and maternal smoking during pregnancy. Pooled odds ratios were computed for various strata of smoking intensity with the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model. Twenty studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in meta-analysis. The pooled point estimate from 20 prospective studies on any maternal smoking versus no maternal smoking was 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.33). Subgroup analyses stratifying maternal smoking on number of cigarettes per day suggest a dose-response relationship at low to moderate levels of smoking, which was not further increased at high levels of smoking. A nonsignificant level of publication bias appears to exist in the smoking-preterm delivery literature. Cigarette smoking is a preventable risk factor that is associated with preterm delivery. Consistent results across many study populations and research designs and evidence of a dose-response relationship support its causal role in preterm delivery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9378(00)70240-7

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shah, N. R., & Bracken, M. B.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-02
Volume
182
Issue
2
Pages
465-472
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014933068
Cited by
394
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 16
FWCI
2.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (F32HL074478)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
maternal cigarette smoking, preterm birth, smoking during pregnancy, dose-response relationship, smoking intensity, preterm birth risk factors, publication bias
MeSH terms
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Obstetric Labor, Premature, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Smoking, Odds Ratio, Case-Control Studies, MEDLINE

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