Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,137

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Obstetric Complications and Schizophrenia: Historical and Meta-Analytic Review

Open access
Cannon, Mary, Jones, Peter B., Murray, Robin M.·2002·American Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.7.1080
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the literature on obstetric complications as a risk factor for schizophrenia. The authors trace the evolution of this literature through different methods and carry out a quantitative review of the results from prospective, population-based studies. METHOD: Relevant papers were identified by a MEDLINE search, by examination of reference lists of published papers, and through personal contact with researchers in the field. Studies were grouped in chronological order according to common themes or methods. Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize the findings of prospective population-based studies. RESULTS: The meta-analytic synthesis of the prospective population-based studies revealed that three groups of complications were significantly associated with schizophrenia: 1) complications of pregnancy (bleeding, diabetes, rhesus incompatibility, preeclampsia); 2) abnormal fetal growth and development: (low birthweight, congenital malformations, reduced head circumference), and 3) complications of delivery (uterine atony, asphyxia, emergency Cesarean section). Pooled estimates of effect sizes were generally less than 2. CONCLUSIONS: Current methods of investigating the relationship between obstetric complications and schizophrenia are reaching the limit of their usefulness. Lack of statistical power to measure small and interactive effects and lack of detailed information about the prenatal period are major problems with current approaches. A combination of disciplines and approaches will be needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these small but important associations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.7.1080

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cannon, M., Jones, P. B., & Murray, R. M.
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
American Psychiatric Association Publishing
Published
2002-07-01
Volume
159
Issue
7
Pages
1080-1092
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
DOI
10.1176/appi.ajp.159.7.1080
OpenAlex
W2127054925
Cited by
1,137
References
8
FWCI
25.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.