Dataset Information

Influence of definition based versus pragmatic birth registration on international comparisons of perinatal and infant mortality: population based retrospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine variations in the registration of extremely low birthweight and early gestation births and to assess their effect on perinatal and infant mortality rankings of industrialised countries.

Design

Retrospective population based study.

Setting

Australia, Canada, European countries, and the United States for 2004; Australia, Canada, and New Zealand for 2007.

Population

National data on live births and on fetal, neonatal, and infant deaths.

Main outcome measures

Reported proportions of live births with birth weight/gestational age of less than 500 g, less than 1000 g, less than 24 weeks, and less than 28 weeks; crude rates of fetal, neonatal, and infant mortality; mortality rates calculated after exclusion of births under 500 g, under 1000 g, less than 24 weeks, and less than 28 weeks.

Results

The proportion of live births under 500 g varied widely from less than 1 per 10,000 live births in Belgium and Ireland to 10.8 per 10,000 live births in Canada and 16.9 in the United States. Neonatal deaths under 500 g, as a proportion of all neonatal deaths, also ranged from less than 1% in countries such as Luxembourg and Malta to 29.6% in Canada and 31.1% in the United States. Rankings of countries based on crude fetal, neonatal, and infant mortality rates differed substantially from rankings based on rates calculated after exclusion of births with a birth weight of less than 1000 g or a gestational age of less than 28 weeks.

Conclusions

International differences in reported rates of extremely low birthweight and very early gestation births probably reflect variations in registration of births and compromise the validity of international rankings of perinatal and infant mortality.

SUBMITTER: Joseph KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3281499 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFetal and neonatal mortality rates are essential indicators of population health, but variations in recording of births and deaths at the limits of viability compromises international comparisons. The World Health Organization recommends comparing rates after exclusion of births with a birth weight less than 1000 grams, but many analyses of perinatal outcomes are based on gestational age. We compared the effects of using a 1000-gram birth weight or a 28-week gestational age threshold on reported rates of fetal and neonatal mortality in Europe.MethodsAggregated data from 2004 on births and deaths tabulated by birth weight and gestational age from 29 European countries/regions participating in the Euro-Peristat project were used to compute fetal and neonatal mortality rates using cut-offs of 1000-grams and 28-weeks (2.8 million total births). We measured differences in rates between and within countries using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and 95% confidence intervals, respectively.Principal findingsFor fetal mortality, rates based on gestational age were significantly higher than those based on birth weight (p<0.001), although these differences varied between countries. The use of a 1000-gram threshold included 8823 fetal deaths compared with 9535 using a 28-week threshold (difference of 712). In contrast, the choice of a cut-off made little difference for comparisons of neonatal deaths (difference of 16). Neonatal mortality rates differed minimally, by under 0.1 per 1000 in most countries (p = 0.370). Country rankings were comparable with both thresholds.ConclusionsNeonatal mortality rates were not affected by the choice of a threshold. However, the use of a 1000-gram threshold underestimated the health burden of fetal deaths. This may in part reflect the exclusion of growth restricted fetuses. In high-income countries with a good measure of gestational age, using a 28-week threshold may provide additional valuable information about fetal deaths occurring in the third trimester.

Project description:Aboriginal populations are at substantially higher risks of adverse birth outcomes, perinatal and infant mortality than their non-Aboriginal counterparts even in developed countries including Australia, U.S. and Canada. There is a lack of data on recent trends in Canada.We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study (n = 254,410) using the linked vital events registry databases for singleton births in Quebec 1996-2010. Aboriginal (First Nations, Inuit) births were identified by mother tongue, place of residence and Indian Registration System membership. Outcomes included preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age, large-for-gestational-age, low birth weight, high birth weight, stillbirth, neonatal death, postneonatal death, perinatal death and infant death.Perinatal and infant mortality rates were 1.47 and 1.80 times higher in First Nations (10.1 and 7.3 per 1000, respectively), and 2.37 and 4.46 times higher in Inuit (16.3 and 18.1 per 1000, respectively) relative to non-Aboriginal (6.9 and 4.1 per 1000, respectively) births (all p<0.001). Compared to non-Aboriginal births, preterm birth rates were persistently (1.7-1.8 times) higher in Inuit, large-for-gestational-age birth rates were persistently (2.7-3.0 times) higher in First Nations births over the study period. Between 1996-2000 and 2006-2010, as compared to non-Aboriginal infants, the relative risk disparities increased for infant mortality (from 4.10 to 5.19 times) in Inuit, and for postneonatal mortality in Inuit (from 6.97 to 12.33 times) or First Nations (from 3.76 to 4.25 times) infants. Adjusting for maternal characteristics (age, marital status, parity, education and rural vs. urban residence) attenuated the risk differences, but significantly elevated risks remained in both Inuit and First Nations births for the risks of perinatal mortality (1.70 and 1.28 times, respectively), infant mortality (3.66 and 1.47 times, respectively) and postneonatal mortality (6.01 and 2.28 times, respectively) in Inuit and First Nations infants (all p<0.001).Aboriginal vs. non-Aboriginal disparities in adverse birth outcomes, perinatal and infant mortality are persistent or worsening over the recent decade in Quebec, strongly suggesting the needs for interventions to improve perinatal and infant health in Aboriginal populations, and for monitoring the trends in other regions in Canada.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared as a pandemic and public health emergency on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. Different clinical trials on the efficacy of mRNA vaccination have excluded pregnant women, leading to a lack of empirical evidence on the efficacy of the vaccine in this population. The aim of the study was to examine the association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection at birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in infected and non-infected women from a university hospital in Spain.MethodsThe data were obtained from electronic health records from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. A bivariate descriptive analysis was performed, comparing women with and without confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy using the chi-square test. A multivariate logistic regression was complementarily conducted to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes.ResultsA total of 2676 women were divided into two groups: non-infected with SARS-CoV-2 (n = 2624) and infected with SARS-CoV-2 (n = 52). Infected women were primarily multiparous (p < 0.03) and had received an incomplete vaccination regimen (p < 0.001). A greater incidence of premature rupture of membranes (p < 0.04) was observed among the non-infected women. Pertaining to perinatal outcomes, there was a notable rise in NICU admissions (p < 0.014), coupled with an extended duration of stay (p < 0.04), for neonates born to infected mothers in comparison to their non-infected counterparts.ConclusionAlthough SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose significant risks to pregnant women and their infants, adverse obstetrical/puerperal outcomes do not significantly differ between women infected and non-infected to SARS-CoV-2 in our study. NICU admissions were higher for neonates born to infected mothers. Additionally, coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with severe adverse perinatal outcomes.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse prospective versus retrospective trial registration trends on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and to evaluate the reasons for non-compliance with prospective registration. DESIGN:Part 1: Descriptive analysis of trial registration trends from 2006 to 2015. Part 2: Online registrant survey. PARTICIPANTS:Part 1: All interventional trials registered on ANZCTR from 2006 to 2015. Part 2: Random sample of those who had retrospectively registered a trial on ANZCTR between 2010 and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Part 1: Proportion of prospective versus retrospective clinical trial registrations (ie, registration before versus after enrolment of the first participant) on the ANZCTR overall and by various key metrics, such as sponsor, funder, recruitment country and sample size. Part 2: Reasons for non-compliance with prospective registration and perceived usefulness of various proposed mechanisms to improve prospective registration compliance. RESULTS:Part 1: Analysis of the complete dataset of 9450 trials revealed that compliance with prospective registration increased from 48% (216 out of 446 trials) in 2006 to 63% (723/1148) in 2012 and has since plateaued at around 64%. Patterns of compliance were relatively consistent across sponsor and funder types (industry vs non-industry), type of intervention (drug vs non-drug) and size of trial (n<100, 100-500, >500). However, primary sponsors from Australia/New Zealand were almost twice as likely to register prospectively (62%; 4613/7452) compared with sponsors from other countries with a WHO Network Registry (35%; 377/1084) or sponsors from countries without a WHO Registry (29%; 230/781). Part 2: The majority (56%; 84/149) of survey respondents cited lack of awareness as a reason for not registering their study prospectively. Seventy-four per cent (111/149) stated that linking registration to ethics approval would facilitate prospective registration. CONCLUSIONS:Despite some progress, compliance with prospective registration remains suboptimal. Linking registration to ethics approval was the favoured strategy among those sampled for improving compliance.