K S Joseph1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dalhousie University and the IWK Health Centre, 5980 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4N1. kjoseph@dal.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional perinatal epidemiology appears to embrace fallacious concepts of risk. The use of incorrect denominators for perinatal rates is commonplace both for straightforward indices such as the gestational age-specific labor induction rate and also for the more conceptually challenging indices such as the gestational age-specific neonatal mortality rate. As a consequence, perinatology is beset by several conondrums including the paradox of intersecting perinatal mortality curves. PROPOSITION: These traditions are ideally replaced by alternative concepts that may be derived a priori and measured using indices such as presented here: the incidence of birth (i.e., the gestational age-specific birth rate), the incidence of growth restriction (i.e., the gestational age-specific growth-restriction rate) and the incidence of death (i.e., the age-specific mortality rate). RESULTS: The incidence of birth, growth restriction, and death quantify the core phenomena in perinatology and reveal congruent and coherent patterns of occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: These new indices can free perinatal epidemiology from erroneous concepts of risk and resolve the paradoxal phenomena that plague the perinatal domain. They also permit the development of a theoretical framework for obstetric intervention, which in recent years has been based exclusively on empirical evidence.
BACKGROUND: Traditional perinatal epidemiology appears to embrace fallacious concepts of risk. The use of incorrect denominators for perinatal rates is commonplace both for straightforward indices such as the gestational age-specific labor induction rate and also for the more conceptually challenging indices such as the gestational age-specific neonatal mortality rate. As a consequence, perinatology is beset by several conondrums including the paradox of intersecting perinatal mortality curves. PROPOSITION: These traditions are ideally replaced by alternative concepts that may be derived a priori and measured using indices such as presented here: the incidence of birth (i.e., the gestational age-specific birth rate), the incidence of growth restriction (i.e., the gestational age-specific growth-restriction rate) and the incidence of death (i.e., the age-specific mortality rate). RESULTS: The incidence of birth, growth restriction, and death quantify the core phenomena in perinatology and reveal congruent and coherent patterns of occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: These new indices can free perinatal epidemiology from erroneous concepts of risk and resolve the paradoxal phenomena that plague the perinatal domain. They also permit the development of a theoretical framework for obstetric intervention, which in recent years has been based exclusively on empirical evidence.
Authors: Joshua Cornman-Homonoff; Devon Kuehn; Sofía Aros; Tonia C Carter; Mary R Conley; James Troendle; Fernando Cassorla; James L Mills Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2011-07-05