Validity of recalled v. recorded birth weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Low birth weight is associated with adverse health outcomes. If birth weight records are not available, studies may use recalled birth weight. It is unclear whether this is reliable. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing recalled with recorded birth weights. We followed the Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to May 2015. We included studies that reported recalled birth weight and recorded birth weight. We excluded studies investigating a clinical population. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled in a random effects meta-analysis for correlation and mean difference. In total, 40 studies were eligible for qualitative synthesis (n = 78,997 births from 78,196 parents). Agreement between recalled and recorded birth weight was high: pooled estimate of correlation in 23 samples from 19 studies (n = 7406) was 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.93]. The difference between recalled and recorded birth weight in 29 samples from 26 studies (n = 29,293) was small [range −86-129 g; random effects estimate 1.4 g (95% CI −4.0-6.9 g)]. Studies were heterogeneous, with no evidence for an effect of time since birth, person reporting, recall bias, or birth order. In post-hoc subgroup analysis, recall was higher than recorded birth weight by 80 g (95% CI 57-103 g) in low and middle income countries. In conclusion, there is high agreement between recalled and recorded birth weight. If birth weight is recalled, it is suitable for use in epidemiological studies, at least in high income countries.

Maternal metabolic adaptations to pregnancy among young women in Cebu, Philippines

“…To test reliability of recalled data, we utilized data available in a subsequent study in this sample that included matched maternal recalled birth weights and interviewer‐assessed weights measured several days after birth (data not shown). Adjusting for the day after birth of the interviewer's measurement, the partial correlation between the two measures was 0.83, suggesting relatively high reliability of the recalled measures consistent with the findings of a recent meta‐analysis of recalled birth weight (Shenkin et al, ).…”

Relationship between birth weight or fetal growth rate and postnatal allergy: A systematic review

“…Others were limited by use of parent-recalled BW as the exposure measure, although in a recent meta-analysis recalled BW and recorded BW were strongly correlated (R 5 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), regardless of time since birth. 48 Recalled BW was estimated as accurate to within approximately 100 g, with the best accuracy for high-income countries, 48 where most of the studies of BW and allergic disease in our meta-analyses were conducted. Most of the studies assessed allergic diseases at ages that should capture the majority of cases of each disease.…”

Does physical activity attenuate the association between birth weight and glycated hemoglobin in nondiabetic Japanese women?

“…There was a high agreement between recorded and recalled birth weight, and recalled birth weight data have been shown to be suitable for use in epidemiological studies, at least in high-income countries. 28 However, our sample was quite small; therefore, the potential bias related to the recalled birth weight might have affected on our results. Second, data on gestational age were not available, and consequently, data could not be adjusted for preterm or small for gestational age births.…”