Alexander G R, Petersen D J, Powell-Griner E, Tompkins M E
Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205.
Am J Public Health. 1989 May;79(5):600-2. doi: 10.2105/ajph.79.5.600.
Utilizing 10,587 cases from the 1980 National Center for Health Statistics Fetal Death Statistics File, we examined the comparability of two methods of determining the gestational age of a fetal death, the calculated interval from date of last normal menses (DLNM) and the physician's estimate. The physician estimated gestational age distribution exhibits even number digit preference and a distinct clustering at the 40-week value. The DLNM distribution appears more smoothly distributed but with a more pronounced post-term tail. An exact agreement between the two methods is observed in only 27.9 per cent of the cases. A 1.7 week mean difference between the methods indicates a systematic underestimation by physician reported gestational age when compared to that calculated from the DLNM, potentially biasing gestational age distributions when the physician estimate is substituted for cases with a missing DLNM. Over 8 per cent of cases 20+ weeks by DLNM are estimated as less than 20 weeks by the physician. This underestimation has important implications for the completeness of reporting of fetal deaths on vital records and the comparability of fetal death rates. Further, it may limit investigations of the completeness of reporting of less than 500 gram live births.
我们利用了1980年国家卫生统计中心胎儿死亡统计文件中的10587个病例,研究了两种确定胎儿死亡孕周的方法的可比性,即从末次正常月经日期(DLNM)计算的间隔时间和医生的估计值。医生估计的孕周分布呈现出偶数位数偏好,且在40周值处有明显的聚集。DLNM分布看起来更平滑,但足月后尾巴更明显。两种方法仅在27.9%的病例中观察到完全一致。两种方法之间平均相差1.7周,这表明与根据DLNM计算的孕周相比,医生报告的孕周存在系统性低估,当用医生的估计值替代DLNM缺失的病例时,可能会使孕周分布产生偏差。根据DLNM超过20周的病例中,超过8%被医生估计为小于20周。这种低估对生命记录中胎儿死亡报告的完整性以及胎儿死亡率的可比性具有重要影响。此外,它可能会限制对体重不足500克活产报告完整性的调查。