The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Obstetric Complications and Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Background: This systematic review of the association between schizophrenia and obstetric complications (OCs) was performed to assess the degree of heterogeneity between studies and to quantify the increased risk of schizophrenia in exposed subjects. Method: Twenty case-control, one prospective cohort and two historical cohort studies were identified using a medline search supplemented by a manual search and direct communication with other researchers. Individual odds ratios were calculated for each study and a pooled estimate produced. The effect of methodological variation between studies was further assessed by partitioning studies according to study characteristics. Results: Overall, there was no significant heterogeneity of effect between studies, and the pooled odds ratio for the exposure to OCs on subsequent development of schizophrenia was 2.0 (95% CI 1.6–2.4). However, partitioning according to study design revealed significant heterogeneity (z = –2.60, P < 0.01) between the pooled estimate from the case-control studies and that from the historical cohort studies. There was a gap on the funnel plot in the region of small studies finding no effect. Conclusions: Although the result indicates that subjects exposed to OCs are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia, the analysis suggests that the observed association could be inflated by both selection and publication biases.
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
Cites
QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THE REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC LITERATURE1
GREENLAND, S. (1987) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298 · Cited by 1,644 · cited 4×
“Statistical analysis We used the standard methods fully described by Greenland (1987) for the meta-analysis.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
The Dopamine Hypothesis of Schizophrenia: Version III--The Final Common Pathway
Howes, O. D., & Kapur, S. (2009) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbp006 · Cited by 2,693
The neuropathology of schizophrenia
Harrison, P. J. (1999) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/122.4.593 · Cited by 1,677
Interneuron dysfunction in psychiatric disorders
Marín, O. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3155 · Cited by 1,190
Schizophrenia as a Disorder of Neurodevelopment
Lewis, D. A., & Levitt, P. (2002) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.25.112701.142754 · Cited by 1,163
The neurodevelopmental model of schizophrenia: update 2005
Rapoport, J. L., Addington, A. M., Frangou, S., & Psych, M. R. C. (2005) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001642 · Cited by 993
Metadata
- Authors
- Geddes, J. R., & Lawrie, S. M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 786-793
- ISSN
- 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-1465
- OpenAlex
- W2039629319
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.34
- 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
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.