Keeling J W, MacGillivray I, Golding J, Wigglesworth J, Berry J, Dunn P M
Department of Histopathology, John Radcliffe Maternity Hospital, Oxford.
Arch Dis Child. 1989 Oct;64(10 Spec No):1345-51. doi: 10.1136/adc.64.10_spec_no.1345.
Three paediatric pathologists, one perinatal paediatrician, one obstetrician, and one epidemiologist separately used information collected on 239 babies in an attempt to validate the Wigglesworth classification of perinatal deaths. This was first done using clinical data only, then using the combination of clinical and gross necropsy findings and finally using clinical, gross necropsy, histological and any other information (for example, chromosome analyses, microbiological investigations). Only 14 (6%) of deaths changed groups within the Wigglesworth classification when gross necropsy findings were considered as well as clinical findings, and altogether only 21 (9%) changed classification when complete investigations were available. There was an unacceptable amount (15%) of disagreement between the classifiers, largely the result of failure to comply with the rules laid down for classification. We set out amendments to Wigglesworth's original definitions to clarify certain ambiguities.
三位儿科病理学家、一位围产期儿科医生、一位产科医生和一位流行病学家分别利用收集到的239名婴儿的信息，试图验证威格尔斯沃思围产期死亡分类法。首先仅使用临床数据进行验证，然后结合临床和大体尸检结果进行验证，最后使用临床、大体尸检、组织学及任何其他信息（例如，染色体分析、微生物学调查）进行验证。当同时考虑大体尸检结果和临床结果时，在威格尔斯沃思分类法中只有14例（6%）死亡病例改变了分组，而当有完整调查结果时，总共只有21例（9%）改变了分类。分类者之间存在不可接受的分歧（15%），这主要是由于未遵守分类规定所致。我们对威格尔斯沃思的原始定义提出了修正，以澄清某些模糊之处。
