United States Vital Statistics and the Measurement of Gestational Age
Overview
Pediatrics
Public Health
Authors
Affiliations
Estimates of the gestational age of the newborn based on US Birth Certificate data are extensively used to monitor trends in infant and maternal health and to improve our understanding of adverse pregnancy outcome. Two measures of gestational age, the 'date of the last normal menses' (LMP) and the 'clinical estimate of gestation' (CE), have been available from birth certificate data since 1989. Reporting irregularities with the LMP-based measure are well-documented, and important questions remain regarding the derivation of the CE. Changes in perinatal medicine and in vital statistics reporting in recent years may have importantly altered gestational age data based on vital statistics. This study describes how gestational age measures are collected and edited in US national vital statistics, and examines changes in the reporting of these measures by race and Hispanic origin between 1990 and 2002. Data are drawn from the National Center for Health Statistics' restricted use US birth files for 1990-2002. Bivariable statistics are used. The percentage of records with missing LMP dates declined markedly over the study period, overall, and for each racial/Hispanic origin group studied. A marked shift in the distribution of the CE of gestational age was also observed, suggesting changes both in the true distribution of age at birth, and in the derivation of this measure. Agreement between the LMP-based and CE estimates increased over the study period, especially among preterm births. However, a high proportion of LMP dates continue to be missing or invalid and the derivation of the CE is still uncertain. In sum, although the reporting of gestational age measures in vital statistics appears to have improved between 1990 and 2002, substantial concerns with both the LMP-based and the CE persist. Efforts to identify approaches to further improve upon the quality of these data are needed.
Gestational age: comparing estimation methods and live births' profile.
de Aquino Bonilha E, Lira M, Freitas M, Aly C, Dos Santos P, Niy D Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2023; 26:e230016.
PMID: 36820753 PMC: 9949487. DOI: 10.1590/1980-549720230016.
Hughes J, Tong D, Faldasz J, Frymoyer A, Keizer R Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022; 62(1):67-76.
PMID: 36404388 PMC: 9898357. DOI: 10.1007/s40262-022-01185-4.
Seage M, Petersen M, Carlson M, VanDerslice J, Stanford J, Schliep K Utah Womens Health Rev. 2022; 6.
PMID: 35669386 PMC: 9167636. DOI: 10.26054/0d-dkas-c5qe.
Glatthorn H, Sauer M, Brandt J, Ananth C F S Rep. 2021; 2(4):413-420.
PMID: 34934981 PMC: 8655429. DOI: 10.1016/j.xfre.2021.05.002.
Geographic Hotspots for Low Birthweight: An Analysis of Counties With Persistently High Rates.
Brown C, Moore J, Felix H, Stewart M, Tilford J Inquiry. 2020; 57:46958020950999.
PMID: 33043787 PMC: 7550956. DOI: 10.1177/0046958020950999.