4.6 Article

Preterm birth time trends in Europe: a study of 19 countries

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12281

关键词

Europe; indicated preterm births; multiple births; preterm births; time trends

资金

  1. European Commission [2010 13 01]
  2. European Commission, Research Directorate, Marie Curie, IOF Fellowship [254171]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo investigate time trends in preterm birth in Europe by multiplicity, gestational age, and onset of delivery. DesignAnalysis of aggregate data from routine sources. SettingNineteen European countries. PopulationLive births in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. MethodsAnnual risk ratios of preterm birth in each country were estimated with year as a continuous variable for all births and by subgroup using log-binomial regression models. Main outcome measuresOverall preterm birth rate and rate by multiplicity, gestational age group, and spontaneous versus non-spontaneous (induced or prelabour caesarean section) onset of labour. ResultsPreterm birth rates rose in most countries, but the magnitude of these increases varied. Rises in the multiple birth rate as well as in the preterm birth rate for multiple births contributed to increases in the overall preterm birth rate. About half of countries experienced no change or decreases in the rates of singleton preterm birth. Where preterm birth rates rose, increases were no more prominent at 35-36weeks of gestation than at 32-34weeks of gestation. Variable trends were observed for spontaneous and non-spontaneous preterm births in the 13 countries with mode of onset data; increases were not solely attributed to non-spontaneous preterm births. ConclusionsThere was a wide variation in preterm birth trends in European countries. Many countries maintained or reduced rates of singleton preterm birth over the past 15years, challenging a widespread belief that rising rates are the norm. Understanding these cross-country differences could inform strategies for the prevention of preterm birth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据