Cited by 58Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Prenatal smoking and postpartum depression: a meta-analysis

Chen, Hong-Lin, Cai, Ji-Yu, Zha, Man-Li, Shen, Wang-Qin·2019·Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objectives: Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common emotional distress among many women in diversified cultures. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between prenatal smoking and PPD.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, Elsevier ScienceDirect, OVID and Springer databases up to 15 March 2017. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of PPD was compared between prenatal smoking women and the ones who did not smoke during pregnancy. The fixed effect model or random effect models were chosen according to heterogeneity between studies.Results: A total of 13 studies with 1,476,922 women were included in the meta-analysis. The average incidence of PPD was 3.0% (1717/57,997) in women with smoke exposure and 1.3% (6571/488,225) in women without smoke exposure. The pooled OR was 2.325 (95% CI 1.925–2.808; Z = 8.76, p < .0001) by random-effect model. The funnel plot was symmetrical, and either the Begg’s test (Z = 0.92, p=.360) or the Egger’s test (t = 0.04, p = .9700) suggested no publication bias among included studies. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the result was robust.Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicated that prenatal smoking was associated with postpartum depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0167482x.2017.1415881

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Prenatal smoking is associated with an almost three-fold increased risk of postpartum depression (OR=2.88, 95% CI 0.99-8.39), with high heterogeneity and borderline significance.

    “Additionally, four prospective studies of 3,736 pregnant women found that prenatal smoking was associated with an almost three-fold increased risk of postpartum depression (OR=2.88, 95% CI: 0.99-8.39), although with high heterogeneity (I²=89.3%) and effects breaching the threshold for statistical significance (p=0.052) 45 .”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, H.-L., Cai, J.-Y., Zha, M.-L., & Shen, W.-Q.
Affiliations
Nantong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Shen, Wang-Qin
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2018-03-08
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
97-105
ISSN
  • 0167-482X (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-8942
OpenAlex
W2792108055
Cited by
58
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
maternal smoking, postpartum depression, smoking during pregnancy, maternal mental health, pregnancy
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Smoking, Depression, Postpartum

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