Nutrition and Health Sciences Program, Laney Graduate School, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Epidemiology. 2019 Jan;30(1):154-159. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000936.
The 2003 revision of the US Standard Certificate of Live Birth (birth certificate) and Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) are important for maternal weight research and surveillance. We examined quality of prepregnancy body mass index (BMI), gestational weight gain, and component variables from these sources.
Data are from a PRAMS data quality improvement study among a subset of New York City and Vermont respondents in 2009. We calculated mean differences comparing prepregnancy BMI data from the birth certificate and PRAMS (n = 734), and gestational weight gain data from the birth certificate (n = 678) to the medical record, considered the gold standard. We compared BMI categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese) and gestational weight gain categories (below, within, above recommendations), classified by different sources, using percent agreement and the simple κ statistic.
For most maternal weight variables, mean differences between the birth certificate and PRAMS compared with the medical record were less than 1 kg. Compared with the medical record, the birth certificate classified similar proportions into prepregnancy BMI categories (agreement = 89%, κ = 0.83); PRAMS slightly underestimated overweight and obesity (agreement = 84%, κ = 0.73). Compared with the medical record, the birth certificate overestimated gestational weight gain below recommendations and underestimated weight gain within recommendations (agreement = 81%, κ = 0.69). Agreement varied by maternal and pregnancy-related characteristics.
Classification of prepregnancy BMI and gestational weight gain from the birth certificate or PRAMS was mostly similar to the medical record but varied by maternal and pregnancy-related characteristics. Efforts to understand how misclassification influences epidemiologic associations are needed.
美国标准出生证明(出生证)和妊娠风险评估监测系统(PRAMS)的 2003 年修订版对于产妇体重研究和监测非常重要。我们检查了这些来源的孕前体重指数(BMI)、妊娠体重增加和组成变量的质量。
数据来自 2009 年纽约市和佛蒙特州部分 PRAMS 数据质量改进研究的受访者。我们比较了出生证和 PRAMS(n=734)的孕前 BMI 数据以及出生证(n=678)的妊娠体重增加数据与病历(金标准)的差异,计算了均值差异。我们比较了不同来源的 BMI 类别(体重不足、正常体重、超重、肥胖)和妊娠体重增加类别(低于、在、高于建议),使用百分比一致性和简单κ统计量。
对于大多数产妇体重变量,出生证和 PRAMS 与病历相比,均值差异小于 1kg。与病历相比,出生证将相似比例的产妇归入孕前 BMI 类别(一致性=89%,κ=0.83);PRAMS 略低估超重和肥胖(一致性=84%,κ=0.73)。与病历相比,出生证高估了低于建议的妊娠体重增加,低估了在建议范围内的体重增加(一致性=81%,κ=0.69)。一致性因产妇和妊娠相关特征而异。
出生证或 PRAMS 中的孕前 BMI 和妊娠体重增加分类与病历大多相似,但因产妇和妊娠相关特征而异。需要努力了解错误分类如何影响流行病学关联。