IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1989795600-602_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of gestational age reporting methods based on physician estimate and date of last normal menses from fetal death reports

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander, G.R.
  • Petersen, D.J.
  • Powell-Griner, E.
  • Tompkins, M.E.

Abstract

Utilizing 10,587 cases from the 1980 National Center for Health Statistics Fetal Death Statistics File, we examined the comparability of two methods of determining the gestational age of a fetal death, the calculated interval from date of last normal menses (DLNM) and the physician's estimate. The physician estimated gestational age distribution exhibits even number digit preference and a distinct clustering at the 40-week value. The DLNM distribution appears more smoothly distributed but with a more pronounced post-term tail. An exact agreement between the two methods is observed in only 27.9 per cent of the cases. A 1.7 week mean difference between the methods indicates a systematic underestimation by physician reported gestational age when compared to that calculated from the DLNM, potentially biasing gestational age distributions when the physician estimate is substituted for cases with a missing DLNM. Over 8 per cent of cases 20+ weeks by DLNM are estimated as

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander, G.R. & Petersen, D.J. & Powell-Griner, E. & Tompkins, M.E., 1989. "A comparison of gestational age reporting methods based on physician estimate and date of last normal menses from fetal death reports," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 79(5), pages 600-602.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1989:79:5:600-602_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1989:79:5:600-602_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.