Elodie Lebreton1,2,3, Catherine Crenn-Hébert3,4, Claudie Menguy3,5, Elizabeth A Howell6,7, Jeffrey B Gould8, Agnès Dechartres9, Jennifer Zeitlin2. 1. Data Science and Analytics Department, SESAN, Paris, France. 2. Obstetrical Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (EPOPé), INSERM, INRA, CRESS, Université de Paris, Paris, France. 3. Perinat-ARS-IDF, Regional Health Agency of Ile-de-France (ARS-IDF), Paris, France. 4. Maternity Unit, Louis Mourier University Hospital, APHP, Colombes, France. 5. Department of Medical Information, André Grégoire Hospital, Montreuil, France. 6. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Women's Health Research Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Population Health Science & Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 9. Sorbonne Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Pitié Salpêtrière, Département de Santé Publique, Centre de Pharmacoépidémiologie de l'AP-HP (Cephepi), Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal morbidity is associated with lifelong impairments, but the absence of a consensual definition and the need for large data sets limit research. OBJECTIVES: To inform initiatives to define standard outcomes for research, we reviewed composite neonatal morbidity indicators derived from routine hospital discharge data. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (updated on October 12, 2018). The search algorithm was based on three components: "morbidity," "neonatal," and "hospital discharge data." STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies investigating neonatal morbidity using a composite indicator based on hospital discharge data were included. Indicators defined for specific conditions (eg congenital anomalies, maternal addictions) were excluded. The target population, objectives, component morbidities, diagnosis and procedure codes, validation methods, and prevalence of morbidity were extracted. SYNTHESIS: For each study, we assessed construct validity by describing the methods used to select the indicator components and evaluated whether the authors assessed internal and external validity. We also calculated confidence intervals for the prevalence of the morbidity composite. RESULTS: Seventeen studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Indicators targeted all (n = 4), low-/moderate-risk (n = 9), and very preterm (VPT, n = 4) infants. Components were similar for VPT infants, but domains and diagnosis codes within domains varied widely for all and low-/moderate-risk infants. Component selection was described for 8/17 indicators and some form of validation reported for 12/17. Neonatal morbidity prevalence ranged from 4.6% to 9.0% of all infants, 0.4% to 8.0% of low-/moderate-risk infants, and 17.8% to 61.0% of VPT infants. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple neonatal morbidity indicators based on hospital discharge data have been used for research, but their heterogeneity limits comparisons between studies. Standard neonatal outcome measures are needed for benchmarking and synthesis of research results.
BACKGROUND: Neonatal morbidity is associated with lifelong impairments, but the absence of a consensual definition and the need for large data sets limit research. OBJECTIVES: To inform initiatives to define standard outcomes for research, we reviewed composite neonatal morbidity indicators derived from routine hospital discharge data. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (updated on October 12, 2018). The search algorithm was based on three components: "morbidity," "neonatal," and "hospital discharge data." STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies investigating neonatal morbidity using a composite indicator based on hospital discharge data were included. Indicators defined for specific conditions (eg congenital anomalies, maternal addictions) were excluded. The target population, objectives, component morbidities, diagnosis and procedure codes, validation methods, and prevalence of morbidity were extracted. SYNTHESIS: For each study, we assessed construct validity by describing the methods used to select the indicator components and evaluated whether the authors assessed internal and external validity. We also calculated confidence intervals for the prevalence of the morbidity composite. RESULTS: Seventeen studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Indicators targeted all (n = 4), low-/moderate-risk (n = 9), and very preterm (VPT, n = 4) infants. Components were similar for VPT infants, but domains and diagnosis codes within domains varied widely for all and low-/moderate-risk infants. Component selection was described for 8/17 indicators and some form of validation reported for 12/17. Neonatal morbidity prevalence ranged from 4.6% to 9.0% of all infants, 0.4% to 8.0% of low-/moderate-risk infants, and 17.8% to 61.0% of VPT infants. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple neonatal morbidity indicators based on hospital discharge data have been used for research, but their heterogeneity limits comparisons between studies. Standard neonatal outcome measures are needed for benchmarking and synthesis of research results.
Authors: Yuri V Sebastião; Lindsay S Womack; Humberto López Castillo; Maya Balakrishnan; Karen Bruder; Paige Alitz; Linda A Detman; Emily A Bronson; John S Curran; William M Sappenfield Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: James G Anderson; Rebecca J Baer; J Colin Partridge; Miriam Kuppermann; Linda S Franck; Larry Rand; Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; Elizabeth E Rogers Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: M A Steurer; J Anderson; R J Baer; S Oltman; L S Franck; M Kuppermann; L Rand; K K Ryckman; J C Partridge; L L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; E E Rogers Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: M Delnord; K Szamotulska; A D Hindori-Mohangoo; B Blondel; A J Macfarlane; N Dattani; C Barona; S Berrut; I Zile; R Wood; L Sakkeus; M Gissler; J Zeitlin Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2016-01-10 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Anna Karin Edstedt Bonamy; Jennifer Zeitlin; Aurélie Piedvache; Rolf F Maier; Arno van Heijst; Heili Varendi; Bradley N Manktelow; Alan Fenton; Jan Mazela; Marina Cuttini; Mikael Norman; Stavros Petrou; Patrick Van Reempts; Henrique Barros; Elizabeth S Draper Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Elke Jeschke; Alexandra Biermann; Christian Günster; Thomas Böhler; Günther Heller; Helmut D Hummler; Christoph Bührer Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 3.418