Literature DB >> 23775254

Evaluation of gestational age estimate method on the calculation of preterm birth rates.

Eric S Hall1, Alonzo T Folger, Elizabeth A Kelly, Beena Devi Kamath-Rayne.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study is to evaluate the impact of vital record gestational age estimation method on resulting preterm birth (PTB) rate calculations. This retrospective analysis reviewed three methods of gestational age estimation using all Ohio live birth records from 2006 to 2009. PTB rates were calculated using each gestational age representation and agreement between classifications of PTB was evaluated with respect to maternal age and race. For each of 608,530 births, gestational age estimates based on last menstrual period (LMP) were compared to clinically-based obstetric estimates. When gestational age estimates did not perfectly agree, differences in the consequential classification of PTB status were evaluated with respect to a third reconciliatory combined gestational age estimate. Mean birth weight at each week of gestation was calculated and compared for all three estimate methods. Substantial agreement was found in PTB classification among gestational age estimates (kappa: 0.748; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.745-0.750); agreement was weakest among black mothers and among mothers less than 20 years of age. LMP-based gestational age estimates did not perfectly agree with obstetric estimates in 238,262 records (39.2%). Disagreement in gestational age led to disagreement in PTB status in 32,033 records (5.3% of total cases) resulting in a 1.8 percentage point difference in PTB rate calculations (11.0% using obstetric and 12.8% using combined estimates). Researchers and policy makers need consistency in selecting which gestational age estimate method to use when calculating or comparing PTB rates.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 23775254     DOI: 10.1007/s10995-013-1302-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Matern Child Health J        ISSN: 1092-7875


  32 in total

1.  Using birth certificate data to determine medically indicated induction rates.

Authors:  William M Callaghan
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Validity of postnatal assessments of gestational age: a comparison of the method of Ballard et al. and early ultrasonography.

Authors:  G R Alexander; F de Caunes; T C Hulsey; M E Tompkins; M Allen
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  The use of United States vital statistics in perinatal and obstetric research.

Authors:  Kenneth C Schoendorf; Amy M Branum
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 4.  The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method.

Authors:  Courtney D Lynch; Jun Zhang
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.980

5.  Gestational assessment assessed.

Authors:  U Wariyar; W Tin; E Hey
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 5.747

6.  A United States national reference for fetal growth.

Authors:  G R Alexander; J H Himes; R B Kaufman; J Mor; M Kogan
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  A simplified score for assessment of fetal maturation of newly born infants.

Authors:  J L Ballard; K K Novak; M Driver
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 4.406

8.  Incomplete birth certificates: a risk marker for infant mortality.

Authors:  Jeffrey B Gould; Gilberto Chavez; Amy R Marks; Hao Liu
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Variation between last-menstrual-period and clinical estimates of gestational age in vital records.

Authors:  Cheng Qin; Jason Hsia; Cynthia J Berg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-01-07       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Cost of hospitalization for preterm and low birth weight infants in the United States.

Authors:  Rebecca B Russell; Nancy S Green; Claudia A Steiner; Susan Meikle; Jennifer L Howse; Karalee Poschman; Todd Dias; Lisa Potetz; Michael J Davidoff; Karla Damus; Joann R Petrini
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 7.124

View more
  6 in total

1.  Standard methods based on last menstrual period dates misclassify and overestimate US preterm births.

Authors:  C S Ambrose; H Caspard; C Rizzo; E C Stepka; G Keenan
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 2.521

2.  Comparison of gestational dating methods and implications for exposure-outcome associations: an example with PM2.5 and preterm birth.

Authors:  Kristen M Rappazzo; Danelle T Lobdell; Lynne C Messer; Charles Poole; Julie L Daniels
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 4.402

3.  Predicting Preterm Birth Among Women Screened by North Carolina's Pregnancy Medical Home Program.

Authors:  Christine M Tucker; Kate Berrien; M Kathryn Menard; Amy H Herring; Julie Daniels; Diane L Rowley; Carolyn Tucker Halpern
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2015-11

Review 4.  What contributes to disparities in the preterm birth rate in European countries?

Authors:  Marie Delnord; Béatrice Blondel; Jennifer Zeitlin
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.927

5.  Population-based rates, risk factors and consequences of preterm births in South-Asia and sub-Saharan Africa: A multi-country prospective cohort study.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2022-02-19       Impact factor: 4.413

6.  Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic Costs.

Authors:  Leonardo Trasande; Patrick Malecha; Teresa M Attina
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 9.031

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.