Literature DB >> 9521185

Are we underestimating rates of vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth? The validity of delivery methods from birth certificates.

D C Green1, J M Moore, M M Adams, C J Berg, L S Wilcox, B J McCarthy.   

Abstract

Previous studies of birth certificates have not fully evaluated how accurately they identify delivery methods that have a historical component, such as repeat cesarean and vaginal birth after previous cesarean (VBAC). The authors used linked Georgia birth certificates for first and second deliveries to examine the accuracy of four reported delivery methods in the second pregnancy: vaginal (without previous cesarean), VBAC, primary cesarean, and repeat cesarean, as well as an indicator of a previous cesarean. From the immediate birth certificates, the delivery method for each of the two births was classified as vaginal (V) or cesarean section (CS), which produced possible sequences of V-V, CS-V, V-CS, and CS-CS. The delivery method for the second births to 106,049 women from 1989 through 1992 was reviewed, taking into account the historical information from the linked certificates regarding the first births. Only 42.0% of women with a CS-V sequence were correctly designated on the second birth certificate as a VBAC; 79.3% of women with a V- CS sequence were correctly designated as primary cesarean. From 1980 through 1988, birth certificates contained a check box indicating a previous cesarean (but no VBAC box). During this period, only 75.5% of 25,491 women with a previous cesarean were so designated on the birth certificate. These findings suggest that cross-sectional vital records data substantially underestimate VBAC and primary cesarean rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9521185     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009490

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  18 in total

1.  The validity of information on "race" and "Hispanic ethnicity" in California birth certificate data.

Authors:  L Baumeister; K Marchi; M Pearl; R Williams; P Braveman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002.

Authors:  Eugene Declercq; Fay Menacker; Marian Macdorman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Accuracy of birth certificate and hospital discharge data: a certified nurse-midwife and physician comparison.

Authors:  Heather M Bradford; Vicky Cárdenas; Katherine Camacho-Carr; Mona T Lydon-Rochelle
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2007-02-06

4.  Vaginal birth after cesarean in California: before and after a change in guidelines.

Authors:  John Zweifler; Alvaro Garza; Susan Hughes; Matthew A Stanich; Anne Hierholzer; Monica Lau
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

5.  Ambient air pollution and the risk of stillbirth.

Authors:  Ambarina S Faiz; George G Rhoads; Kitaw Demissie; Lakota Kruse; Yong Lin; David Q Rich
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Is the accuracy of prior preterm birth history biased by delivery characteristics?

Authors:  David N Hackney; Danielle E Durie; Ann M Dozier; Barbara J Suter; J Christopher Glantz
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2012-08

7.  A new method for measuring misclassification of maternal sets in maternally linked birth records: true and false linkage proportions.

Authors:  Jack K Leiss
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2006-10-26

8.  Reliability of birth certificate data: a multi-hospital comparison to medical records information.

Authors:  David L DiGiuseppe; David C Aron; Lorin Ranbom; Dwain L Harper; Gary E Rosenthal
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2002-09

9.  U.S. Maternally linked birth records may be biased for Hispanics and other population groups.

Authors:  Jack K Leiss; Denise Giles; Kristin M Sullivan; Rahel Mathews; Glenda Sentelle; Kay M Tomashek
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.797

10.  Ambient air pollutant concentrations during pregnancy and the risk of fetal growth restriction.

Authors:  D Q Rich; K Demissie; S-E Lu; L Kamat; D Wartenberg; G G Rhoads
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.