Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jan 24.
Published in final edited form as: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;67(10):1012–1024. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.111

Table 4.

Comparison of Unadjusted Pooled RRs and Trim-and-Fill Adjusted Pooled RRs

Depression Predictor No. of Studies Unadjusted Pooled RR (95% CI)a No. of Missing Studies Trim-and-Fill Adjusted Pooled RR (95% CI)b
PTB
 Overall 20 1.13 (1.06–1.21) 10 1.07 (0.99–1.15)
 Categorical 16 1.39 (1.19–1.61) 6 1.24 (1.04–1.47)
 Continuous 4 1.03 (1.00–1.06) 1 1.03 (1.00–1.07)
LBWc
 Overall 11 1.18 (1.07–1.30) 6 1.10 (1.00–1.22)
 Categorical 9 1.49 (1.25–1.77) 4 1.34 (1.10–1.64)
IUGR
 Overall 12 1.03 (0.99–1.08) 4 1.03 (0.97–1.09)
 Categorical 8 1.45 (1.05–2.02) 3 1.17 (0.82–1.68)
 Continuous 4 1.02 (1.00–1.04) 2 1.00 (0.98–1.03)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction; LBW, low birth weight; PTB, preterm birth; RR, relative risk.

a

Using random-effects models.

b

Using random-random effects trim-and-fill models.

c

Only 2 studies used a continuous depression predictor; the trim-and-fill algorithm requires 3 or more studies.