ArticleRevista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology2023
Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births' profile.
Article in Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify factors associated with the definition of the gestational age (GA) estimation method recorded in the live birth certificate (LBC), and to compare the results obtained according to the method in the city of São Paulo (CSP), between 2012 and 2019.
methodsCross-sectional population-based study using the Live Birth Information System. Descriptive and comparative analysis was performed according to the GA estimation method, followed by a univariate and multivariate logistic regression model to identify the predictor variables of the method used.
resultsThe estimation of GA by the date of the last menstrual period (LMP) (39.9%) was lower than that obtained by other methods (OM) (60.1%) - physical examination and ultrasound, between 2012-2019. LMP registration in the LBC increased with the mother's age, it was higher among women who were white, more educated and with partners, in cesarean sections and with private funding. In the logistic regression, public funding was 2.33 times more likely than private funding to use OM. The proportion of preterm infants (<37 weeks) with GA by LMP was 26.5% higher than that obtained by OM. Median birth weight was higher among preterm infants with GA estimated by LMP.
conclusionPrematurity was higher with the GA estimated by LMP in the CSP, which may indicate overestimation by this method. The source of funding was the most explanatory variable for defining the GA estimator method at the LBC. The results point to the need for caution when comparing the GA obtained by different methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.