56
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cross-Country Individual Participant Analysis of 4.1 Million Singleton Births in 5 Countries with Very High Human Development Index Confirms Known Associations but Provides No Biologic Explanation for 2/3 of All Preterm Births

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Preterm birth is the most common single cause of perinatal and infant mortality, affecting 15 million infants worldwide each year with global rates increasing. Understanding of risk factors remains poor, and preventive interventions have only limited benefit. Large differences exist in preterm birth rates across high income countries. We hypothesized that understanding the basis for these wide variations could lead to interventions that reduce preterm birth incidence in countries with high rates. We thus sought to assess the contributions of known risk factors for both spontaneous and provider-initiated preterm birth in selected high income countries, estimating also the potential impact of successful interventions due to advances in research, policy and public health, or clinical practice.

          Methods

          We analyzed individual patient-level data on 4.1 million singleton pregnancies from four countries with very high human development index (Czech Republic, New Zealand, Slovenia, Sweden) and one comparator U.S. state (California) to determine the specific contribution (adjusting for confounding effects) of 21 factors. Both individual and population-attributable preterm birth risks were determined, as were contributors to cross-country differences. We also assessed the ability to predict preterm birth given various sets of known risk factors.

          Findings

          Previous preterm birth and preeclampsia were the strongest individual risk factors of preterm birth in all datasets, with odds ratios of 4.6–6.0 and 2.8–5.7, respectively, for individual women having those characteristics. In contrast, on a population basis, nulliparity and male sex were the two risk factors with the highest impact on preterm birth rates, accounting for 25–50% and 11–16% of excess population attributable risk, respectively (p<0.001). The importance of nulliparity and male sex on population attributable risk was driven by high prevalence despite low odds ratios for individual women. More than 65% of the total aggregated risk of preterm birth within each country lacks a plausible biologic explanation, and 63% of difference between countries cannot be explained with known factors; thus, research is necessary to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of preterm birth and, hence, therapeutic intervention. Surprisingly, variation in prevalence of known risk factors accounted for less than 35% of the difference in preterm birth rates between countries. Known risk factors had an area under the curve of less than 0.7 in ROC analysis of preterm birth prediction within countries. These data suggest that other influences, as yet unidentified, are involved in preterm birth. Further research into biological mechanisms is warranted.

          Conclusions

          We have quantified the causes of variation in preterm birth rates among countries with very high human development index. The paucity of explicit and currently identified factors amenable to intervention illustrates the limited impact of changes possible through current clinical practice and policy interventions. Our research highlights the urgent need for research into underlying biological causes of preterm birth, which alone are likely to lead to innovative and efficacious interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine.

          The clinical performance of a laboratory test can be described in terms of diagnostic accuracy, or the ability to correctly classify subjects into clinically relevant subgroups. Diagnostic accuracy refers to the quality of the information provided by the classification device and should be distinguished from the usefulness, or actual practical value, of the information. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots provide a pure index of accuracy by demonstrating the limits of a test's ability to discriminate between alternative states of health over the complete spectrum of operating conditions. Furthermore, ROC plots occupy a central or unifying position in the process of assessing and using diagnostic tools. Once the plot is generated, a user can readily go on to many other activities such as performing quantitative ROC analysis and comparisons of tests, using likelihood ratio to revise the probability of disease in individual subjects, selecting decision thresholds, using logistic-regression analysis, using discriminant-function analysis, or incorporating the tool into a clinical strategy by using decision analysis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A quality study of a medical birth registry.

            A quality control study was made of the Swedish Medical Birth Registry. This registry used one mode of data collection during 1973-1981 and another from 1982 onwards. The number of errors in the register was checked by comparing register information with a sample of the original medical records, and the variability in the use of diagnoses between hospitals was studied. Different types of errors were identified and quantified and the efficiency of the two methods of data collection evaluated.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects.

              The estimation of controlled direct effects can be carried out by fitting a marginal structural model and using inverse probability of treatment weighting. To use marginal structural models to estimate natural direct and indirect effects, 2 marginal structural models can be used: 1 for the effects of the treatment and mediator on the outcome and 1 for the effect of the treatment on the mediator. Unlike marginal structural models typically used in epidemiologic research, the marginal structural models used to estimate natural direct and indirect effects are made conditional on the covariates.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                13 September 2016
                2016
                : 11
                : 9
                : e0162506
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, United States of America
                [2 ]March of Dimes Foundation, White Plains, NY, United States of America
                [3 ]International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute for the Health of Women and Children, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
                [5 ]Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America
                [6 ]Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of Mississippi, Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States of America
                [7 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University / College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, United States of America
                [8 ]Tommy’s Centre for Fetal and Maternal Health, Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen’s Medical Research Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [9 ]Unit of Biostatistics, IMM, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                [10 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
                [11 ]Department of Perinatology, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
                [12 ]Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Perinatal Centre, Prague, Czech Republic
                [13 ]Department of Genes and Environment, Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
                Universite de Montreal, CANADA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) consults with large nonprofit organizations on global health issues. Authors from BCG (DMF, JL, SCS) were employed under contract with the March of Dimes Foundation and FIGO. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                • Conceived and designed the experiments: DMF JL BJ GCD JEN JNM MD EC CPH MB SCS HR SA JLH JLS.

                • Performed the experiments: DMF JL JAM GMS JLS.

                • Analyzed the data: DMF JL BJ GCD JEN JNM MD EC CPH MB JAM GMS SCS HR SA JLH JLS.

                • Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DMF JL BJ VS MB IV NT PV.

                • Wrote the paper: DMF JL BJ GCD JEN JNM MD EC CPH GMS SA JLH JLS.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3814-2659
                Article
                PONE-D-16-24286
                10.1371/journal.pone.0162506
                5021369
                27622562
                e51c4903-900e-419a-b9c7-c93e9765c3ca
                © 2016 Ferrero et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 14 July 2016
                : 1 August 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 0, Pages: 19
                Funding
                This study was funded by the March of Dimes Foundation and the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO). Individuals from these organizations were involved in analyzing the data and writing the paper. Authors from the Boston Consulting Group (DMF, JL, SCS) contributed to this work under contract with the March of Dimes Foundation and FIGO. The sponsoring agencies’ financial management had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Maternal Health
                Birth
                Preterm Birth
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Birth
                Preterm Birth
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Maternal Health
                Pregnancy
                Pregnancy Complications
                Preterm Birth
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Pregnancy
                Pregnancy Complications
                Preterm Birth
                People and Places
                Demography
                Birth Rates
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Population Biology
                Population Metrics
                Birth Rates
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Europe
                Sweden
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Risk Analysis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                People and places
                Geographical locations
                Oceania
                New Zealand
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                People and places
                Geographical locations
                North America
                United States
                California
                Custom metadata
                All data sources are described in the Methods. To protect patient privacy, the data are available on request for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article