Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 437

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gestational Age at Delivery and Special Educational Need: Retrospective Cohort Study of 407,503 Schoolchildren

Open access
MacKay, Daniel F., Smith, Gordon C. S., Dobbie, Richard, Pell, Jill P.·2010·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated an association between preterm delivery and increased risk of special educational need (SEN). The aim of our study was to examine the risk of SEN across the full range of gestation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective study by linking school census data on the 407,503 eligible school-aged children resident in 19 Scottish Local Authority areas (total population 3.8 million) to their routine birth data. SEN was recorded in 17,784 (4.9%) children; 1,565 (8.4%) of those born preterm and 16,219 (4.7%) of those born at term. The risk of SEN increased across the whole range of gestation from 40 to 24 wk: 37-39 wk adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.20; 33-36 wk adjusted OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.43-1.63; 28-32 wk adjusted OR 2.66, 95% CI 2.38-2.97; 24-27 wk adjusted OR 6.92, 95% CI 5.58-8.58. There was no interaction between elective versus spontaneous delivery. Overall, gestation at delivery accounted for 10% of the adjusted population attributable fraction of SEN. Because of their high frequency, early term deliveries (37-39 wk) accounted for 5.5% of cases of SEN compared with preterm deliveries (<37 wk), which accounted for only 3.6% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Gestation at delivery had a strong, dose-dependent relationship with SEN that was apparent across the whole range of gestation. Because early term delivery is more common than preterm delivery, the former accounts for a higher percentage of SEN cases. Our findings have important implications for clinical practice in relation to the timing of elective delivery.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000289

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 437

Metadata

Authors
MacKay, D. F., Smith, G. C. S., Dobbie, R., & Pell, J. P.
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2010-06-08
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
e1000289
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2105009603
Cited by
437
References
2
FWCI
20.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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.