Cargando…
Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with the definition of the gestational age (GA) estimation method recorded in the live birth certificate (LBC), and to compare the results obtained according to the method in the city of São Paulo (CSP), between 2012 and 2019. METHODS: Cross-sectional popula...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9949487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36820753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720230016 |
_version_ | 1784892963423256576 |
---|---|
author | Bonilha, Eliana de Aquino Lira, Margarida Maria Tenório de Azevedo de Freitas, Marina Aly, Célia Maria Castex dos Santos, Patrícia Carla Niy, Denise Yoshie Diniz, Carmen Simone Grilo |
author_facet | Bonilha, Eliana de Aquino Lira, Margarida Maria Tenório de Azevedo de Freitas, Marina Aly, Célia Maria Castex dos Santos, Patrícia Carla Niy, Denise Yoshie Diniz, Carmen Simone Grilo |
author_sort | Bonilha, Eliana de Aquino |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with the definition of the gestational age (GA) estimation method recorded in the live birth certificate (LBC), and to compare the results obtained according to the method in the city of São Paulo (CSP), between 2012 and 2019. METHODS: Cross-sectional population-based study using the Live Birth Information System. Descriptive and comparative analysis was performed according to the GA estimation method, followed by a univariate and multivariate logistic regression model to identify the predictor variables of the method used. RESULTS: The estimation of GA by the date of the last menstrual period (LMP) (39.9%) was lower than that obtained by other methods (OM) (60.1%) — physical examination and ultrasound, between 2012–2019. LMP registration in the LBC increased with the mother's age, it was higher among women who were white, more educated and with partners, in cesarean sections and with private funding. In the logistic regression, public funding was 2.33 times more likely than private funding to use OM. The proportion of preterm infants (<37 weeks) with GA by LMP was 26.5% higher than that obtained by OM. Median birth weight was higher among preterm infants with GA estimated by LMP. CONCLUSION: Prematurity was higher with the GA estimated by LMP in the CSP, which may indicate overestimation by this method. The source of funding was the most explanatory variable for defining the GA estimator method at the LBC. The results point to the need for caution when comparing the GA obtained by different methods. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9949487 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99494872023-02-24 Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile Bonilha, Eliana de Aquino Lira, Margarida Maria Tenório de Azevedo de Freitas, Marina Aly, Célia Maria Castex dos Santos, Patrícia Carla Niy, Denise Yoshie Diniz, Carmen Simone Grilo Rev Bras Epidemiol Original Article OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with the definition of the gestational age (GA) estimation method recorded in the live birth certificate (LBC), and to compare the results obtained according to the method in the city of São Paulo (CSP), between 2012 and 2019. METHODS: Cross-sectional population-based study using the Live Birth Information System. Descriptive and comparative analysis was performed according to the GA estimation method, followed by a univariate and multivariate logistic regression model to identify the predictor variables of the method used. RESULTS: The estimation of GA by the date of the last menstrual period (LMP) (39.9%) was lower than that obtained by other methods (OM) (60.1%) — physical examination and ultrasound, between 2012–2019. LMP registration in the LBC increased with the mother's age, it was higher among women who were white, more educated and with partners, in cesarean sections and with private funding. In the logistic regression, public funding was 2.33 times more likely than private funding to use OM. The proportion of preterm infants (<37 weeks) with GA by LMP was 26.5% higher than that obtained by OM. Median birth weight was higher among preterm infants with GA estimated by LMP. CONCLUSION: Prematurity was higher with the GA estimated by LMP in the CSP, which may indicate overestimation by this method. The source of funding was the most explanatory variable for defining the GA estimator method at the LBC. The results point to the need for caution when comparing the GA obtained by different methods. Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva 2023-02-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9949487/ /pubmed/36820753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720230016 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License |
spellingShingle | Original Article Bonilha, Eliana de Aquino Lira, Margarida Maria Tenório de Azevedo de Freitas, Marina Aly, Célia Maria Castex dos Santos, Patrícia Carla Niy, Denise Yoshie Diniz, Carmen Simone Grilo Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile |
title | Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile |
title_full | Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile |
title_fullStr | Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile |
title_full_unstemmed | Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile |
title_short | Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile |
title_sort | gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births’ profile |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9949487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36820753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720230016 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bonilhaelianadeaquino gestationalagecomparingestimationmethodsandlivebirthsprofile AT liramargaridamariatenoriodeazevedo gestationalagecomparingestimationmethodsandlivebirthsprofile AT defreitasmarina gestationalagecomparingestimationmethodsandlivebirthsprofile AT alyceliamariacastex gestationalagecomparingestimationmethodsandlivebirthsprofile AT dossantospatriciacarla gestationalagecomparingestimationmethodsandlivebirthsprofile AT niydeniseyoshie gestationalagecomparingestimationmethodsandlivebirthsprofile AT dinizcarmensimonegrilo gestationalagecomparingestimationmethodsandlivebirthsprofile |