• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

法罗群岛与丹麦围产期死亡率的出生体重校正比较。

A birth weight adjusted comparison of perinatal mortality in the Faroe Islands and Denmark.

作者信息

Olsen S F, Olsen J

机构信息

Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Aarhus.

出版信息

Scand J Soc Med. 1994 Sep;22(3):219-24. doi: 10.1177/140349489402200311.

DOI:10.1177/140349489402200311
PMID:7846481
Abstract

The objectives were to compare perinatal mortality (PNM) in the Faroes and Denmark while accounting for the high birth weights in the Faroes, and to discuss methodological aspects related to this task. We applied conventional methods employing absolute birth weight standards, and the Wilcox-Russell way of comparing relative birth weights. During 1977-85 perinatal mortality (PNM) in the Faroes was 14.7 (98 cases) per 1,000 births, and 1.57 times higher than that in Denmark. Conventional method: birth weight-standardised risk ratio for PNM in the Faroes v Denmark was 1.95; the risk ratio declined with increasing birth weight. Wilcox-Russell model: the risk tended to be more uniformly increased across the birth weight distribution when babies with same relative birth weights were compared; the residual component of the birth weight distribution (i.e. the excess of observed births in the lower tail beyond what could be predicted by a Gaussian distribution) was 2.1% in the Faroes and 3.6% in Denmark, which does not fit with the model assumption that the size of the residual component is a strong determinant of a population's PNM.

摘要

研究目的是比较法罗群岛和丹麦的围产期死亡率(PNM),同时考虑法罗群岛较高的出生体重,并讨论与该任务相关的方法学问题。我们采用了采用绝对出生体重标准的传统方法,以及比较相对出生体重的威尔科克斯 - 拉塞尔方法。1977年至1985年期间,法罗群岛的围产期死亡率(PNM)为每1000例出生中有14.7例(98例),比丹麦高1.57倍。传统方法:法罗群岛与丹麦围产期死亡率的出生体重标准化风险比为1.95;风险比随出生体重增加而下降。威尔科克斯 - 拉塞尔模型:当比较相对出生体重相同的婴儿时,风险在整个出生体重分布中倾向于更均匀地增加;法罗群岛出生体重分布的残差分量(即观察到的出生数在较低尾部超过高斯分布预测值的部分)为2.1%,丹麦为3.6%,这与残差分量大小是人群围产期死亡率的强决定因素这一模型假设不符。

相似文献

1
A birth weight adjusted comparison of perinatal mortality in the Faroe Islands and Denmark.法罗群岛与丹麦围产期死亡率的出生体重校正比较。
Scand J Soc Med. 1994 Sep;22(3):219-24. doi: 10.1177/140349489402200311.
2
Perinatal deaths in the Faroe Islands during 1986-95.1986 - 1995年法罗群岛的围产期死亡情况。
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000 Oct;79(10):834-8.
3
High liveborn birth weights in the Faroes: a comparison between birth weights in the Faroes and in Denmark.法罗群岛高出生体重活产儿情况:法罗群岛与丹麦出生体重对比
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1985 Mar;39(1):27-32. doi: 10.1136/jech.39.1.27.
4
A clinico-pathological classification of perinatal deaths in the Faroe Islands.法罗群岛围产期死亡的临床病理分类
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 May;102(5):389-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb11291.x.
5
Birth weight and perinatal mortality: the effect of gestational age.出生体重与围产期死亡率:孕周的影响
Am J Public Health. 1992 Mar;82(3):378-82. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.3.378.
6
Birth weight and perinatal mortality: a comparison of "optimal" birth weight in seven Western European countries.出生体重与围产期死亡率:七个西欧国家 “最佳” 出生体重的比较
Epidemiology. 2002 Sep;13(5):569-74. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200209000-00013.
7
Birth-weight-adjusted infant mortality in evaluations of perinatal care: towards a useful summary measure.围产期护理评估中经出生体重调整的婴儿死亡率:迈向一项有用的汇总指标。
Stat Med. 1993 Feb;12(3-4):377-92. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780120319.
8
Birth weight and perinatal mortality. A comparison of the United States and Norway.出生体重与围产期死亡率。美国与挪威的比较。
JAMA. 1995 Mar 1;273(9):709-11.
9
Breech births in twin pregnancy: an analysis of Apgar score and perinatal mortality from a Nigerian sample.双胎妊娠中的臀位分娩:来自尼日利亚样本的阿氏评分及围产期死亡率分析
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1988 Aug;27(1):11-6. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(88)90081-1.
10
Perinatal factors in twin mortality in Nigeria.尼日利亚双胞胎死亡率中的围产期因素。
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1986 Aug;24(4):309-14. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(86)90089-5.