International comparisons of fetal and neonatal mortality rates in high-income countries: Should exclusion thresholds be based on birth weight or gestational age?

Article English OPEN
Mohangoo, A. D. ; Blondel, B. ; Gissler, M. ; Velebil, P. ; Macfarlane, A. J. ; Zeitlin, J. ; Euro-Peristat Scientific Committee, . (2013)
  • Publisher: Public Library of Science
  • Journal: volume 8, issue 5 (eissn: 1932-6203)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064869, pmc: PMC3658983
  • Subject: Global Health | Social Epidemiology | Research Article | High-Income Countries | Pregnancy | Medicine | Growth Retardation | Miscarriage and Stillbirth | Child Health | Pediatric Epidemiology | Epidemiology | Epidemiological Methods | Neonatology | Neonatal Mortality Rates | RG | Obstetrics and Gynecology | Pediatrics | Pregnancy Complications | Public Health

Background: Fetal 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.\ud \ud Methods: Aggregated 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.\ud \ud Principal Findings: For 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.\ud \ud Conclusions: Neonatal 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.
  • References (29)
    29 references, page 1 of 3

    1. Joseph KS, Liu S, Rouleau J, Lisonkova S, Hutcheon JA, et al. (2012) Influence ofdefinition based versus pragmatic birth registration on international comparisons of perinatal and infant mortality: population based retrospective study. BMJ 344: e746 doi:10.1136/bmj.e746.

    2. Zeitlin J, Blondel B, Mohangoo AD, Cuttini M, Macfarlane A, et al. (2012) Rapid response to: Influence of definition based versus pragmatic birth registration on international comparisons of perinatal and infant mortality: population based retrospective study. BMJ.

    3. Mohangoo AD, Buitendijk SE, Szamotulska K, Chalmers J, Irgens LM, et al. (2011) Gestational age patterns of fetal and neonatal mortality in Europe: results from the Euro-Peristat project. PloS one 6(11): e24727.

    4. Frøen JF, Gordijn SJ, Abdel-Aleem H, Bergsjø P, Betran A, et al. (2009) Making stillbirths count, making numbers talk - issues in data collection for stillbirths. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 9: 58.

    5. Gissler M, Mohangoo AD, Blondel B, Chalmers J, Macfarlane A, et al. (2010) Perinatal health monitoring in Europe: results from the EURO-PERISTAT project. Inform Health Soc Care 35(2): 64-79.

    6. EURO-PERISTAT project in collaboration with SCPE, EUROCAT and EURONEOSTAT (2008) Better statistics for better health for pregnant women and their babies in 2004. European Perinatal Health Report. Available at www. europeristat.com.

    7. World Health Organization. ICD-10: International Statistical Classificationof Diseases and Related Health Problems - Instruction Manual. 2. In: WHO, ed. Geneva: WHO; 2004: http: //www.who.int/classifications/icd/ icdonlineversions/en/index.html. Accessed http: //www.who.int/ classifications/icd/icdonlineversions/en/index.html accessed 25.07.2011.

    8. Flenady V, Middleton P, Smith GC, Duke W, Erwich JJ, et al. (2011) Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries. Lancet. 377(9778): 1703-1717.

    9. Kramer MS, McLean FH, Boyd ME, Usher RH (1988) The validity of gestational age estimation by menstrual dating in term, preterm, and postterm gestations. JAMA. 260(22): 3306-8.

    10. Ananth CV (2007) Menstrual versus clinical estimate of gestational age dating in the United States: temporal trends and variability in indices of perinatal outcomes. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 21 Suppl 2: 22-30.

  • Related Research Results (1)
  • Similar Research Results (2)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark