The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Shift Work, Nitrous Oxide Exposure and Subfertility among Swedish Midwives
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shift work and nitrous oxide exposure have both been suspected of having adverse influence on the reproductive performance of health workers. Time to pregnancy has been suggested as a sensitive measure of fecundity in occupationally exposed groups. We investigated the effects of shift work and nitrous oxide exposure on the fertility of Swedish midwives. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all members of the Swedish Midwives Association who were born 1940 or thereafter, 3985 in all. Eighty-four per cent responded. Detailed information on the number of menstrual cycles required to achieve pregnancy and the working conditions during that period were obtained concerning the most recent, planned pregnancy occurring after 1983. The per cycle probability of becoming pregnant was calculated for each exposure category, and the relation to the unexposed was expressed as fecundability ratios. RESULTS: Midwives who worked two-shift, three-shift rotas, or only nights had reduced fertility compared to those working in the day time. The fecundability ratios were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.94), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60-0.98), and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.64-1.03), respectively, after adjustment for covariates. No effect of nitrous oxide exposure was noted except in the small group reporting that they assisted at more than 30 deliveries per month when nitrous oxide was used (fecundability ratio = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.95). CONCLUSION: Shift work and frequent, high occupational exposure to nitrous oxide may have a negative influence on the ability of women to become pregnant.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Quenby, S., Gallos, I. D., Dhillon-Smith, R. K., Podesek, M., Stephenson, M. D., Fisher, J., Brosens, J. J., Brewin, J., Ramhorst, R., Lucas, E. S., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00682-6 · Cited by 1,560
Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews
Jones, L., Othman, M., Dowswell, T., Alfirevic, Z., Gates, S., Newburn, M., Jordan, S., Lavender, T., & Neilson, J. P. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009234.pub2 · Cited by 608
Update on Bispectral Index monitoring
Johansen, J. W. (2006) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2005.08.004 · Cited by 313
Davis, S., & Mirick, D. K. (2006) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-005-9010-9 · Cited by 302
Health Consequences of Circadian Disruption in Humans and Animal Models
Evans, J. A., & Davidson, A. J. (2013) · Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-396971-2.00010-5 · Cited by 291
Metadata
- Authors
- AHLBORG, G., AXELSSON, G., & BODIN, L.
- Venue
- International Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 783-790
- ISSN
- 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3685
- OpenAlex
- W2081643062
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Shift Work, Nitrous Oxide Exposure and Subfertility among Swedish Midwives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ije/25.4.783
- The paper
- AHLBORG, G., AXELSSON, G., & BODIN, L. (1996). Shift Work, Nitrous Oxide Exposure and Subfertility among Swedish Midwives. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/25.4.783
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.