Literature DB >> 16755258

Feasibility of the current-duration approach to studying human fecundity.

Rémy Slama1, Béatrice Ducot, Lisbeth Carstensen, Christine Lorente, Elise de La Rochebrochard, Henri Leridon, Niels Keiding, Jean Bouyer.   

Abstract

Approaches for monitoring time trends in couples' fecundity and for studying its sensitivity to environmental factors are needed. Two approaches rely on the inclusion of a cross-sectional sample of couples currently "at risk" of pregnancy either with follow up (prevalent cohort) or without follow up (current-duration design). To illustrate the feasibility of the current-duration design, we contacted a random sample of 1204 French women age 18 to 44 years in 2004 and recruited those who were currently having unprotected sexual intercourse. The current duration since the beginning of unprotected intercourse was defined for 69 women (5.7%). An additional 15 women (1.2%) were planning to start trying to become pregnant within the next 6 months. Parametric methods allowed, based on current duration of unprotected intercourse, estimation of fecundity as if the couples had been followed prospectively. The estimated proportion of couples not pregnant after 12 months of unprotected intercourse was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15-54%). The accelerated-failure time model allows study of the influence of environmental factors on fecundity. As an illustration, tobacco smoking by the woman was associated with a doubling in the median duration of unprotected intercourse before pregnancy (adjusted time ratio = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.1-5.2). We quantified the influence of time trends in the prevalence of smoking on this estimate. We suggest ways to quantify or avoid other potential bias. In conclusion, it is possible to recruit a sample of couples currently having unprotected intercourse. The current-duration design appears feasible with approximately 5 times as many women eligible for study as for an incident cohort design.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16755258     DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000221781.15114.88

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  22 in total

1.  Anti-Müllerian hormone: a potential new tool in epidemiologic studies of female fecundability.

Authors:  Donna D Baird; Anne Z Steiner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Heavy metals and couple fecundity, the LIFE Study.

Authors:  Germaine M Buck Louis; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Enrique F Schisterman; Anne M Sweeney; Courtney D Lynch; Robert E Gore-Langton; Zhen Chen; Sungduk Kim; Kathleen L Caldwell; Dana Boyd Barr
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2012-02-04       Impact factor: 7.086

3.  "Research on Infertility: Definition Makes a Difference" Revisited.

Authors:  Melanie H Jacobson; Helen B Chin; Ann C Mertens; Jessica B Spencer; Amy Fothergill; Penelope P Howards
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Designing prospective cohort studies for assessing reproductive and developmental toxicity during sensitive windows of human reproduction and development--the LIFE Study.

Authors:  Germaine M Buck Louis; Enrique F Schisterman; Anne M Sweeney; Timothy C Wilcosky; Robert E Gore-Langton; Courtney D Lynch; Dana Boyd Barr; Steven M Schrader; Sungduk Kim; Zhen Chen; Rajeshwari Sundaram
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 3.980

5.  Measuring infertility: searching for consensus.

Authors:  Marie Thoma
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Higher urinary lignan concentrations in women but not men are positively associated with shorter time to pregnancy.

Authors:  Sunni L Mumford; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Enrique F Schisterman; Anne M Sweeney; Dana Boyd Barr; Michael E Rybak; Jose M Maisog; Daniel L Parker; Christine M Pfeiffer; Germaine M Buck Louis
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 4.798

7.  Prevalent cohort studies and unobserved heterogeneity.

Authors:  Niels Keiding; Katrine Lykke Albertsen; Helene Charlotte Rytgaard; Anne Lyngholm Sørensen
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 1.588

Review 8.  Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer.

Authors:  Melissa M Smarr; Katherine J Sapra; Alison Gemmill; Linda G Kahn; Lauren A Wise; Courtney D Lynch; Pam Factor-Litvak; Sunni L Mumford; Niels E Skakkebaek; Rémy Slama; Danelle T Lobdell; Joseph B Stanford; Tina Kold Jensen; Elizabeth Heger Boyle; Michael L Eisenberg; Paul J Turek; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Marie E Thoma; Germaine M Buck Louis
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  Work schedule and physical factors in relation to fecundity in nurses.

Authors:  Audrey J Gaskins; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Christina C Lawson; Eva S Schernhammer; Stacey A Missmer; Jorge E Chavarro
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 10.  Epidemiologic tools to study the influence of environmental factors on fecundity and pregnancy-related outcomes.

Authors:  Rémy Slama; Ferran Ballester; Maribel Casas; Sylvaine Cordier; Merete Eggesbø; Carmen Iniguez; Mark Nieuwenhuijsen; Claire Philippat; Sylvie Rey; Stéphanie Vandentorren; Martine Vrijheid
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 6.222

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.