Validation of Obstetric Estimate Using Early Ultrasound: 2007 California Birth Certificates

被引:30
作者
Barradas, Danielle T. [1 ]
Dietz, Patricia M. [1 ]
Pearl, Michelle [2 ]
England, Lucinda J. [1 ]
Callaghan, William M. [1 ]
Kharrazi, Martin [3 ]
机构
[1] Ctr Dis Control & Prevent, Div Reprod Hlth, Atlanta, GA 30341 USA
[2] Sequoia Fdn, Richmond, CA USA
[3] Calif Dept Publ Hlth, Genet Dis Screening Program, Richmond, CA USA
关键词
validity; gestational age; preterm; GESTATIONAL-AGE; FETAL AGE; BIOMETRY;
D O I
10.1111/ppe.12083
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
BackgroundObstetric estimate (OE) of gestational age, recently added to the standard US birth certificate, has not been validated. Using early ultrasound-based gestational age (prior to 20 weeks gestation) as the criterion standard, we estimated the prevalence of preterm delivery and the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of gestational age estimates based on OE. MethodsWe analyzed 165148 singleton livebirth records (38% of California livebirths during the study period) with linked early ultrasound information from a statewide California prenatal screening programme. OE of gestational age estimates was obtained from birth certificates. ResultsPrevalence of preterm delivery (<37 weeks gestation) was higher based on early ultrasound (8.1%) compared with preterm delivery based on OE (7.1%). Sensitivity for preterm birth when using OE for gestational age was 74.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] [74.1, 75.6]), and PPV was 85.1% (95% CI [84.4, 85.7]). Incongruence, defined as a14-day difference between early-ultrasound-derived gestational age and OE, was 3.4%. ConclusionsOE reported on the birth certificate may underestimate the prevalence of preterm delivery, particularly among women of non-Hispanic non-white race and ethnicity and women with lower educational attainment, public insurance at time of delivery, and missing prepregnancy BMI. Additional validation studies in other samples of births are needed.
引用
收藏
页码:3 / 10
页数:8
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]  
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2009, OBSTET GYNECOLOGY, V101, P1
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2003, GUIDE COMPLETING FAC
[3]   Differences in Birth Weight for Gestational Age Distributions According to the Measures Used to Assign Gestational Age [J].
Callaghan, William M. ;
Dietz, Patricia M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 171 (07) :826-836
[4]   How accurate is fetal biometry in the assessment of fetal age? [J].
Chervenak, FA ;
Skupski, DW ;
Romero, R ;
Myers, MK ;
Smith-Levitin, M ;
Rosenwaks, Z ;
Thaler, HT .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1998, 178 (04) :678-687
[5]   A comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records [J].
Dietz, Patricia M. ;
England, Lucinda J. ;
Callaghan, William M. ;
Pearl, Michelle ;
Wier, Megan L. ;
Kharrazi, Martin .
PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 21 :62-71
[6]  
Hamilton B.E., 2012, NATL VITAL STAT REPO, V61
[7]   Fetal age assessment based on ultrasound head biometry and the effect of maternal and fetal factors [J].
Johnsen, SL ;
Rasmussen, S ;
Sollien, R ;
Kiserud, T .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2004, 83 (08) :716-723
[8]   Mid-trimester ultrasound prediction of gestational age:: advantages and systematic errors [J].
Källén, K .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 20 (06) :558-563
[9]   Does a discrepancy between gestational age determined by biparietal diameter and last menstrual period sometimes signify early intrauterine growth retardation? [J].
Larsen, T ;
Nguyen, TH ;
Greisen, G ;
Engholm, G ;
Moller, H .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2000, 107 (02) :238-244
[10]   The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method [J].
Lynch, Courtney D. ;
Zhang, Jun .
PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 21 :86-96