Suppr超能文献

写在纸上的价值?英国对死产医学证明准确性的横断面研究。

Worth the paper it's written on? A cross-sectional study of Medical Certificate of Stillbirth accuracy in the UK.

机构信息

United Kingdom Audit and Research Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, UK.

MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queens Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh BioQuarter, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

Int J Epidemiol. 2023 Feb 8;52(1):295-308. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyac100.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Medical Certificate of Stillbirth (MCS) records data about a baby's death after 24 weeks of gestation but before birth. Major errors that could alter interpretation of the MCS were widespread in two UK-based regional studies.

METHODS

A multicentre evaluation was conducted, examining MCS issued 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 in 76 UK obstetric units. A systematic case-note review of stillbirths was conducted by Obstetric and Gynaecology trainees, generating individual 'ideal MCSs' and comparing these to the actual MCS issued. Anonymized central data analysis described rates and types of error, agreement and factors associated with major errors.

RESULTS

There were 1120 MCSs suitable for assessment, with 126 additional submitted data sets unsuitable for accuracy analysis (total 1246 cases). Gestational age demonstrated 'substantial' agreement [K = 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.76)]. Primary cause of death (COD) showed 'fair' agreement [K = 0.26 (95% CI 0.24-0.29)]. Major errors [696/1120; 62.1% (95% CI 59.3-64.9%)] included certificates issued for fetal demise at <24 weeks' gestation [23/696; 3.3% (95% CI 2.2-4.9%)] or neonatal death [2/696; 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-1.1%)] or incorrect primary COD [667/696; 95.8% (95% CI 94.1-97.1%)]. Of 540/1246 [43.3% (95% CI 40.6-46.1%)] 'unexplained' stillbirths, only 119/540 [22.0% (95% CI 18.8-25.7%)] remained unexplained; the majority were redesignated as either fetal growth restriction [FGR: 195/540; 36.1% (95% CI 32.2-40.3%)] or placental insufficiency [184/540; 34.1% (95% CI 30.2-38.2)]. Overall, FGR [306/1246; 24.6% (95% CI 22.3-27.0%)] was the leading primary COD after review, yet only 53/306 [17.3% (95% CI 13.5-22.1%)] FGR cases were originally attributed correctly.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates widespread major errors in MCS completion across the UK. MCS should only be completed following structured case-note review, with particular attention on the fetal growth trajectory.

摘要

背景

《死产医学证明》(MCS)记录了 24 孕周后但出生前婴儿死亡的数据。在两项基于英国的区域性研究中,存在广泛的可能改变 MCS 解读的主要错误。

方法

进行了一项多中心评估,对 2018 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日期间在英国 76 个产科单位签发的 MCS 进行了系统的病历审查。妇产科受训人员对死产进行了个体“理想 MCS”的系统病历审查,并将这些与实际签发的 MCS 进行了比较。匿名的中心数据分析描述了错误的发生率和类型、一致性以及与主要错误相关的因素。

结果

有 1120 份 MCS 适合评估,另外还有 126 份提交的数据集不适合准确性分析(共 1246 例)。胎龄显示出“显著”的一致性[K=0.73(95%置信区间 0.70-0.76)]。主要死因(COD)显示出“适度”的一致性[K=0.26(95%置信区间 0.24-0.29)]。主要错误[696/1120;62.1%(95%置信区间 59.3-64.9%)]包括在 24 孕周以下签发的胎儿死亡证明[23/696;3.3%(95%置信区间 2.2-4.9%)]或新生儿死亡[2/696;0.3%(95%置信区间 0.1-1.1%)]或不正确的主要 COD[667/696;95.8%(95%置信区间 94.1-97.1%)]。在 540/1246[43.3%(95%置信区间 40.6-46.1%)]“不明原因”的死产中,只有 119/540[22.0%(95%置信区间 18.8-25.7%)]仍然原因不明;大多数被重新指定为胎儿生长受限[FGR:195/540;36.1%(95%置信区间 32.2-40.3%)]或胎盘功能不全[184/540;34.1%(95%置信区间 30.2-38.2%)]。总体而言,FGR[306/1246;24.6%(95%置信区间 22.3-27.0%)]是审查后主要的 COD,但只有 53/306[17.3%(95%置信区间 13.5-22.1%)]FGR 病例最初被正确归因。

结论

本研究表明,英国普遍存在 MCS 填写中的主要错误。只有在进行了结构化的病历审查后,才能完成 MCS,尤其要注意胎儿的生长轨迹。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a394/9908049/6dd9b2035499/dyac100f1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验