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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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