The lunar cycle and the number of deliveries in Austria between 1970 and 1999
Abstract
The effect of the moon on the number of newborns has been investigated extensively with contradictory results but with few significant findings. In this paper, a possible lunar effect is analyzed by a nonlinear Poisson regression model similar to a Fourier analysis based on all children (n = 2,760,362) born in Austria between 1970 and 1999, i.e. 371 lunar cycles. We found no significant effect even when considering the influence of parity and gestation. Our study is in contrast to a French study using a similarly large data base which showed a weak but significant effect. Nevertheless, significant p values based on very large samples must be interpreted cautiously. Our study is in concordance with other studies which often use small and selected samples or rather inefficient statistical methods. We conclude that there is no significant effect of the lunar cycle on the number of deliveries in Austria.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Waldhoer and colleagues on around 2.5 mio births in Austria between 1970 and 1999 did not find evidence for a significant correlation between birth rates and lunar phases.
“Others, however, do not find evidence for a significant correlation, such as a study by Waldhoer and colleagues on around 2.5 mio births in Austria between 1970 and 1999 (71).”
From An Overview of Monthly Rhythms and Clocks (2017) · cites this paper as [71]
Both of the more recent studies report a significant drop of birth rates on weekends in their respective datasets.
“Of note, both of the more recent studies report a significant drop of birth rates on weekends in their respective datasets (70, 71).”
From An Overview of Monthly Rhythms and Clocks (2017) · cites this paper as [71]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 28
- Authors
- Waldhoer, T., Haidinger, G., & Vutuc, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Venue
- Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 88-89
- ISSN
- 0378-7346 (ISSN-L)
- 1423-002X
- OpenAlex
- W2062659841
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 28.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Keywords
- lunar cycle, birth rate, delivery, parity, gestation, Fourier analysis
- MeSH terms
- Austria, Female, Humans, Poisson Distribution, Moon, Delivery, Obstetric
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
