Are pregnancy outcomes associated with risk factor reporting in routinely collected perinatal data?

Amanda J Ampt, Jane B Ford, Lee K Taylor, Christine L Roberts
{"title":"Are pregnancy outcomes associated with risk factor reporting in routinely collected perinatal data?","authors":"Amanda J Ampt,&nbsp;Jane B Ford,&nbsp;Lee K Taylor,&nbsp;Christine L Roberts","doi":"10.1071/NB12116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess reporting characteristics of commonly dichotomised pregnancy outcomes (e.g. preterm/term birth); and to investigate whether behaviours (e.g. smoking), medical conditions (e.g. diabetes) or interventions (e.g. induction) were reported differently by pregnancy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Further analysis of a previous validation study was undertaken, in which 1680 perinatal records were compared with data extracted from medical records. Continuous and polytomous variables were dichotomised, and risk factor reporting was assessed within the dichotomised outcome groups. Agreement, kappa, sensitivity and positive predictive value calculations were undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gestational age, birthweight, Apgar scores, perineal trauma, regional analgesia and baby discharge status (live birth/stillbirth) were reported with high accuracy and reliability when dichotomised (kappa values 0.95-1.00, sensitivities 94.7-100.0%). Although not statistically significant, there were trends for hypertension, infant resuscitation and instrumental birth to be more accurately reported among births with adverse outcomes. In contrast, smoking ascertainment tended to be poorer among preterm births and when babies were <2500 g.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dichotomising variables collected as continuous or polytomous variables in birth data results in accurate and well ascertained data items. There is no evidence of systematic differential reporting of risk factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":29974,"journal":{"name":"NSW Public Health Bulletin","volume":"24 2","pages":"65-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NSW Public Health Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/NB12116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Aim: To assess reporting characteristics of commonly dichotomised pregnancy outcomes (e.g. preterm/term birth); and to investigate whether behaviours (e.g. smoking), medical conditions (e.g. diabetes) or interventions (e.g. induction) were reported differently by pregnancy outcomes.

Methods: Further analysis of a previous validation study was undertaken, in which 1680 perinatal records were compared with data extracted from medical records. Continuous and polytomous variables were dichotomised, and risk factor reporting was assessed within the dichotomised outcome groups. Agreement, kappa, sensitivity and positive predictive value calculations were undertaken.

Results: Gestational age, birthweight, Apgar scores, perineal trauma, regional analgesia and baby discharge status (live birth/stillbirth) were reported with high accuracy and reliability when dichotomised (kappa values 0.95-1.00, sensitivities 94.7-100.0%). Although not statistically significant, there were trends for hypertension, infant resuscitation and instrumental birth to be more accurately reported among births with adverse outcomes. In contrast, smoking ascertainment tended to be poorer among preterm births and when babies were <2500 g.

Conclusion: Dichotomising variables collected as continuous or polytomous variables in birth data results in accurate and well ascertained data items. There is no evidence of systematic differential reporting of risk factors.

在常规收集的围产期数据中,妊娠结局与危险因素报告是否相关?
目的:评估常见的二分类妊娠结局(如早产/足月分娩)的报告特征;并调查行为(如吸烟)、医疗条件(如糖尿病)或干预措施(如诱导)是否因怀孕结果而有所不同。方法:对先前的一项验证研究进行进一步分析,其中1680例围产期记录与从医疗记录中提取的数据进行比较。对连续变量和多变量进行二分类,并在二分类结果组中评估风险因素报告。进行一致性、kappa、敏感性和阳性预测值计算。结果:胎龄、出生体重、Apgar评分、会阴创伤、局部镇痛和婴儿出院情况(活产/死产)在二分类时具有较高的准确性和可靠性(kappa值0.95 ~ 1.00,敏感性94.7 ~ 100.0%)。虽然没有统计学上的显著性,但高血压、婴儿复苏和器械分娩的趋势在不良结局的出生中被更准确地报道。结论:将出生数据中作为连续变量或多变量收集的二分类变量导致准确和充分确定的数据项。没有证据表明危险因素有系统的差异报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信