We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment & Response |

Induction or Augmentation of Labor and Autism

Anthony M. Vintzileos, MD1; Cande V. Ananth, PhD, MPH2,3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, New York
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York
3Department of Epidemiology, Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York
JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(2):190. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4795.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To the Editor In a recent epidemiological study, Gregory and colleagues1 concluded that induction or augmentation of labor during childbirth is associated with increased odds of autism in children. Unfortunately, several aspects of the design and interpretation of the findings were overlooked. We articulate them next.

(1) The primary outcome (autism) is poorly defined since the specific designation for children with multiple exceptionalities was “at the discretion of school personnel” because of lack of guidelines. This raises the possibility of response misclassification likely biasing the results. (2) The exposed (labor induction/augmentation) and the unexposed (no induction/augmented) groups are not comparable, thereby violating one of the fundamental principles of cohort study designs.2 The unexposed group included patients who delivered after spontaneous labor as well patients who delivered by repeat cesarean prior to the onset of labor. The cesarean delivery rate in North Carolina during the study years 1990 to 1998 was 22% to 23% and the repeat cesarean delivery rate was estimated to be approximately 10% of the total number of deliveries.3 Therefore, approximately 62 504 women who had repeat cesarean delivery were included in the unexposed group. This translates to a significant percentage (approximately 14%) of patients in the unexposed group who may never have been exposed to labor. Therefore, the reference group was at a clear advantage, thus having less chance for autism (selection bias). This bias would have likely led to an overestimation of the associations reported by Gregory et al. (3) The potential inclusion of more than 1 pregnancy per woman violates the statistical assumption of independence of observations, potentially leading to incorrect statistical and biologic inferences. This is very important given the heritable nature of autism.4 (4) A Cox proportional hazards regression that takes account of the changing profile of autism risks by the child’s age (at diagnosis) is more appropriate than a logistic regression model. (5) The conclusions leave room for bias due to residual confounding because several important confounders were not adjusted. (6) Our concerns regarding the heterogeneity of the primary exposure and our argument that there was no association between labor/augmentation and autism when the correct diagnostic criteria for autism were applied for the last 3 birth years of the study (1996-1998) have been espoused elsewhere.5


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





February 1, 2014
Marie Lynn Miranda, PhD; Rebecca Anthopolos, MA; Simon G. Gregory, PhD
1Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor2Children’s Environmental Health Initiative, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
2Children’s Environmental Health Initiative, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
3Center for Human Genetics, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina4Duke Institute of Molecular Physiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(2):191-192. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4792.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...