Are we underestimating rates of vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth? The validity of delivery methods from birth certificates

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 147, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 581-586

  Green, Diane C ^a,b,c   Moore, Judith M ^a,b   Adams, Melissa M ^a   Berg, Cynthia J ^a   Wilcox, Lynne S ^a   McCarthy, Brian J ^a  

^a WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^b CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^c Prudential Ctr for Hlth Care Res   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias (epidemiology); Birth certificates; Cesarean section; Repeat; Reproducibility of results; Sensitivity and specificity; Vaginal birth after cesarean

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BIRTH CERTIFICATE; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEWBORN; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; VAGINAL DELIVERY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0032521391     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009490     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Gissler M, Teperi J, Hemminki E, et al. Data quality after restructuring a national medical registry. Scand J Soc Med 1995;23:75-80.
2. Lu JH, Lin FM, Shen WY, et al. Data quality of a computerized medical birth registry. Med Inf (Lond) 1994;19:323-30.
3. Teperi J. Multi method approach to the assessment of data quality in the Finnish Medical Birth Registry. J Epidemiol Community Health 1993;47:242-7.
4. O'Reilly MP. A birth certificate audit program in Pennsylvania. In: Proceedings of the 1991 Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, 1991:57-62.
5. Kindsvater S, Starzyk P. Washington State birth certificate data quality study and field program design. In: Proceedings of the 1991 Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, 1991:63-8.
6. Holmes AE, Rutenberg GW, Larimer GC. Quality of new medical data from the revised Texas certificate of live birth. In: Proceedings of the 1991 Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, 1991:432-6.
7. Floyd L, Lavoie M, Terry JS. The status of birth certificate information in Georgia. J Med Assoc Ga 1981;70:871-3.
8. Buescher PA, Taylor KP, Davis MH, et al. The quality of the new birth certificate data: a validation study in North Carolina. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1163-5.
9. Piper JM, Mitchel EF, Snowden M, et al. Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:758-68.
10. Parrish KM, Holt VL, Connell FA, et al. Variations in the accuracy of obstetric procedures and diagnoses on birth records in Washington State, 1989. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:119-27.
11. Adams MM, Wilson HG, Casto DL, et al. Construction of reproductive histories by linkage of vital records. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:339-48.
12. Adams MM, Berg CJ, McDermott JC, et al. Evaluation of reproductive histories constructed by linking vital records. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1997;11:78-92.
13. Berg CJ, Zupan J, d'Almada PJ, et al. Gestational age and intrauterine growth retardation among white and black very low birthweight infants: a population-based cohort study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1994;8:53-61.
14. Tolson GC, Barnes JM, Gay GA, et al. The 1989 revision of the U.S. standard certificates and reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1991. (Vital and health statistics, Series 4: Documents and committee reports, no. 28) (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 91-1465).
15. Freedman MA, Gay GA, Brockert JE, et al. The 1989 revisions of the U.S. standard certificates of live birth and death and the U.S. standard report of fetal death. Am J Public Health 1988;78:168-72.