Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28680794›Full record

ReviewCurrent epidemiology reports2017

Methodological Challenges in International Comparisons of Perinatal Mortality.

K S Joseph, Neda Razaz, Giulia M Muraca, Sarka Lisonkova

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current epidemiology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

K S JosephDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia and the Children's and Women's Hospital and Health Centre of British Columbia, Room C403, Women's Hospital of British Columbia, 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC V6H 3N1 Canada.
Neda RazazReproductive Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Giulia M MuracaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia and the Children's and Women's Hospital and Health Centre of British Columbia, Room C403, Women's Hospital of British Columbia, 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC V6H 3N1 Canada.
Sarka LisonkovaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia and the Children's and Women's Hospital and Health Centre of British Columbia, Room C403, Women's Hospital of British Columbia, 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC V6H 3N1 Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewSeveral prestigious agencies routinely rank countries based on crude perinatal and infant mortality rates, while more recently, international neonatal networks have begun comparing neonatal mortality and morbidity rates among very preterm and very low-birth-weight infants. We discuss the methodologic challenges that compromise such comparisons and potential remedies. RECENT

findingsCrude perinatal mortality rates are biased by international variations in birth registration, especially at the borderline of viability. Such bias is demonstrated by significant differences in crude versus birth weight- and gestational age-specific comparisons of perinatal mortality. Comparisons of neonatal mortality among very preterm and very low-birth-weight infants are plagued by incorrect denominators, and this leads to paradoxical findings. SUMMARY: A lack of standardization with regard to birth registration and inadequate appreciation of the methods for calculating gestational age-specific mortality rates are responsible for biasing international comparisons of perinatal mortality.

Indexed as

Birth weightGestational ageInternationalMethodsPerinatal mortality

Identifiers

PMID28680794
PMCPMC5488116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.