Pearl Michelle, Wier Megan L, Kharrazi Martin
Sequoia Foundation, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;21 Suppl 2:50-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00861.x.
Birth certificate last menstrual period (LMP) date is widely used to estimate gestational age in the US. While data quality concerns have been raised, no large population-based study has isolated data quality issues by comparing birth record LMP (Birth LMP) with reliable LMP dates from another source. We assessed LMP data quality in 2002 California singleton livebirth records (n = 515 381) and in a subset of records with linked prenatally collected LMP from California's statewide Prenatal Expanded Alpha-fetoprotein Screening Program (XAFP) (n = 105 936). Missing or incomplete LMP data affected 13% of birth records; 17% of those had complete LMP within XAFP records. Data quality indicators supported XAFP LMP as more accurate than Birth LMP, with a lower prevalence of digit preference, post-term delivery, out-of-range gestational age estimates and implausible birthweight-for-gestational age. The bimodal birthweight distribution evident at 20-31 weeks' gestation based on Birth LMP was nearly absent with XAFP LMP-based gestational age. Approximately 32% of the second birthweight mode was explained by apparent clerical errors in Birth LMP month. Digit preference errors, particularly day 1, were associated with gestational age overestimation. Preterm delivery rates were higher according to Birth (7.6%) vs. XAFP LMP (7.2%). One-fifth of observed preterm and over half of observed post-term births using Birth LMP were not true cases; 15% of true preterm cases were missed. African American or Hispanic, less educated, and publicly or uninsured women were most likely to be misclassified and have large LMP date discrepancies attributable to clerical or digit preference error. The implementation of a revised birth certificate is an opportunity for targeted training and data entry checks that could substantially improve LMP accuracy on birth records.
在美国,出生证明上的末次月经日期(LMP)被广泛用于估算孕周。尽管有人提出了数据质量方面的担忧,但尚无大规模基于人群的研究通过将出生记录中的LMP(出生LMP)与来自其他来源的可靠LMP日期进行比较来分离数据质量问题。我们评估了2002年加利福尼亚州单胎活产记录(n = 515381)以及加利福尼亚州全州产前扩大甲胎蛋白筛查项目(XAFP)中与产前收集的LMP相关联的记录子集(n = 105936)中的LMP数据质量。缺失或不完整的LMP数据影响了13%的出生记录;其中17%在XAFP记录中有完整的LMP。数据质量指标表明XAFP的LMP比出生LMP更准确,数字偏好、过期产、孕周估算超出范围以及孕周出生体重不合理的发生率更低。基于出生LMP在孕20 - 31周时明显的双峰出生体重分布在基于XAFP LMP的孕周时几乎不存在。出生LMP月份中明显的文书错误解释了大约32%的第二个出生体重模式。数字偏好错误,尤其是1号,与孕周高估有关。根据出生LMP计算的早产率(7.6%)高于XAFP LMP(7.2%)。使用出生LMP观察到的早产中有五分之一以及过期产中有超过一半并非真正的病例;15%的真正早产病例被漏诊。非裔美国人或西班牙裔、受教育程度较低以及公共医保或无医保的女性最有可能被错误分类,并且由于文书或数字偏好错误而存在较大的LMP日期差异。实施修订后的出生证明是进行有针对性培训和数据录入检查的契机,这可以大幅提高出生记录上LMP的准确性。