Adverse birth outcomes are important public health measures, accounting for a substantial burden on healthcare systems and families worldwide. These outcomes include preterm birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and various congenital anomalies. There is considerable diversity in the many factors suspected or recognized to increase their risk, ranging from maternal health conditions to environmental exposures. This diversity renders it challenging to synthesize the totality of the evidence through traditional systematic review methods.
To address this challenge, SciPinion conducted an expert elicitation to characterize the state of the literature on this topic, evaluate the interconnections amongst risk factors, and identify those that are a priority for future research. A panel of 30 scientists and physicians with expertise in birth outcome epidemiology were solicited to identify a series of health outcomes and associated risk factors.
The panel identified 15 distinct birth outcomes and 247 possible risk factors, with varying numbers of risk factors relevant to each health outcome. Each panel member was asked to score the weight of evidence (WOE) for each risk factor and birth outcome combination on a scale of 1 (no evidence) to 5 (strong evidence) for combinations where they had working knowledge of the literature. Not all experts scored every combination, reflecting the different areas of expertise represented on the panel.
The compilation of these 1,127 WOE scores was used to create a publicly available database for birth outcomes risk factors. This database is intended to be updated over time to serve as a current resource for the research and medical community.
The panel’s work, led by Paul Villeneuve at Carleton University in collaboration with SciPinion, demonstrates how structured expert elicitation can complement traditional evidence synthesis methods. By leveraging the collective expertise of specialists across birth outcome epidemiology, this approach addresses complex scientific questions that would be difficult to resolve through conventional review processes alone.
This independent evaluation incorporated knowledge from across the field, examining maternal health factors, environmental exposures, lifestyle factors, and socioeconomic determinants. The panel’s approach to weighing evidence demonstrates how structured expert deliberation can address complex scientific questions that inform both clinical practice and public health policy. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges that SciPinion’s peer review process meets or exceeds the EPA’s FIFRA Science Advisory Panel process in every point of comparison.
Back to Panel Findings
TABLE 2. Number of risk factors identified by category.