An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth

被引:114
作者
Flenady, Vicki [1 ,2 ]
Froen, J. Frederik [3 ,4 ]
Pinar, Halit [5 ]
Torabi, Rozbeh [5 ]
Saastad, Eli [3 ,6 ]
Guyon, Grace [7 ]
Russell, Laurie [8 ]
Charles, Adrian [9 ]
Harrison, Catherine [9 ]
Chauke, Lawrence [9 ]
Pattinson, Robert [10 ]
Koshy, Rachel [11 ]
Bahrin, Safiah [11 ]
Gardener, Glenn [1 ]
Day, Katie [1 ]
Petersson, Karin [12 ]
Gordon, Adrienne [13 ]
Gilshenan, Kristen [1 ]
机构
[1] Mater Mothers Res Ctr, Mater Hlth Serv, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[3] Norwegian Inst Publ Hlth, Div Epidemiol, Dept Genes & Environm, Oslo, Norway
[4] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Biol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[5] Brown Univ, Sch Med, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[6] Arkeshus Univ Coll, Fac Nursing Educ, Dept Midwifery, Lillestrom, Norway
[7] Alberta Perinatal Hlth Program, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[8] Univ Alberta, Dept Lab Med & Pathol, Univ Alberta Hosp, Div Anat Pathol, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[9] King Edward Mem Hosp, Dept Paediat & Perinatal Pathol, Perth, WA, Australia
[10] Univ Pretoria, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa
[11] Minist Hlth Malaysia, Div Family Hlth Dev, Putrajaya, Malaysia
[12] Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet, Stockholm, Sweden
[13] Royal Prince Alfred Hosp, Dept Neonatal Med, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
CLASSIFYING PERINATAL DEATH; FUNDAMENTAL CLASSIFICATION; MATERNAL MORTALITY; WESTERN-AUSTRALIA; NEONATAL DEATHS; SUBOPTIMAL CARE; FETAL-DEATH; AUDIT; ENGLAND; DENMARK;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2393-9-24
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background: Audit and classification of stillbirths is an essential part of clinical practice and a crucial step towards stillbirth prevention. Due to the limitations of the ICD system and lack of an international approach to an acceptable solution, numerous disparate classification systems have emerged. We assessed the performance of six contemporary systems to inform the development of an internationally accepted approach. Methods: We evaluated the following systems: Amended Aberdeen, Extended Wigglesworth; PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe, Tulip and CODAC. Nine teams from 7 countries applied the classification systems to cohorts of stillbirths from their regions using 857 stillbirth cases. The main outcome measures were: the ability to retain the important information about the death using the InfoKeep rating; the ease of use according to the Ease rating (both measures used a five-point scale with a score <2 considered unsatisfactory); inter-observer agreement and the proportion of unexplained stillbirths. A randomly selected subset of 100 stillbirths was used to assess inter-observer agreement. Results: InfoKeep scores were significantly different across the classifications (p <= 0.01) due to low scores for Wigglesworth and Aberdeen. CODAC received the highest mean (SD) score of 3.40 (0.73) followed by PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe and Tulip [2.77 (1.00), 2.36 (1.21), 1.92 (1.24) respectively]. Wigglesworth and Aberdeen resulted in a high proportion of unexplained stillbirths and CODAC and Tulip the lowest. While Ease scores were different (p <= 0.01), all systems received satisfactory scores; CODAC received the highest score. Aberdeen and Wigglesworth showed poor agreement with kappas of 0.35 and 0.25 respectively. Tulip performed best with a kappa of 0.74. The remainder had good to fair agreement. Conclusion: The Extended Wigglesworth and Amended Aberdeen systems cannot be recommended for classification of stillbirths. Overall, CODAC performed best with PSANZ-PDC and ReCoDe performing well. Tulip was shown to have the best agreement and a low proportion of unexplained stillbirths. The virtues of these systems need to be considered in the development of an international solution to classification of stillbirths. Further studies are required on the performance of classification systems in the context of developing countries. Suboptimal agreement highlights the importance of instituting measures to ensure consistency for any classification system.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 66 条
[1]   A NEW HIERARCHICAL-CLASSIFICATION OF CAUSES OF INFANT DEATHS IN ENGLAND AND WALES [J].
ALBERMAN, E ;
BOTTING, B ;
BLATCHLEY, N ;
TWIDELL, A .
ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD, 1994, 70 (05) :403-409
[2]   England and Wales: distribution and results of hierarchical classifications tested by the Office for National Statistics [J].
Alberman, E ;
Blatchley, N ;
Botting, B ;
Schuman, J ;
Dunn, A .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1997, 104 (09) :1043-1049
[3]   Perinatal and postneonatal mortality among Indigenous and non-indigenous infants born in Western Australia, 1980-1998 [J].
Alessandri, LM ;
Chambers, HM ;
Blair, EM ;
Read, AW .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2001, 175 (04) :185-189
[4]   Use of Wigglesworth pathophysiological classification for perinatal mortality in Malaysia [J].
Amar, HSS ;
Maimunah, AH ;
Wong, SL .
ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD-FETAL AND NEONATAL EDITION, 1996, 74 (01) :F56-F59
[5]  
[Anonymous], INT CLASSIFICATION D
[6]  
BAIRD D, 1954, J OBSTET GYN BRIT EM, V61, P433
[7]  
Baird D, 1941, LANCET, V2, P657
[8]  
Baird D., 1969, Perintal Problems. The second report of the 1958 British perinatal mortality survey, P200
[9]  
BorchChristensen H, 1997, ACTA OBSTET GYN SCAN, V76, P40
[10]  
Butler NR, 1963, PERINATAL MORTALITY, P202