Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bodnar, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bodnar, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Am J Epidemiol 2002; 156:903-912.
Copyright © 2002 by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health


ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Who Should Be Screened for Postpartum Anemia? An Evaluation of Current Recommendations

Lisa M. Bodnar1,2, Anna Maria Siega-Riz1,2,3, William C. Miller4,5, Mary E. Cogswell6 and Thad McDonald7

This paper was awarded the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) Abraham Lilienfeld Student Prize for 2002.
Correspondence to Lisa M. Bodnar, Carolina Population Center, The University of North Carolina, Campus Box #8120, University Square, 123 West Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (e-mail: lisa_bodnar{at}unc.edu).
1 Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health and School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
2 Carolina Population Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
3 Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
4 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
5 Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
6 Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
7 Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Wake Medical Center, Raleigh, NC.

The authors evaluated the utility of selective screening criteria for postpartum anemia developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) versus criteria developed among low-income women using prevalence-based screening principles. Pregnant women in Raleigh, North Carolina, were followed up to the postpartum visit in 1997–1999 (n = 345). Prevalence of postpartum anemia was 19.1%. Independent risk markers, arrived at through multivariate logistic regression, were multiparity (odds ratio (OR) = 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8, 2.9), obesity (OR = 3.0, 95% CI: 1.6, 5.5), anemia at 24–29 weeks’ gestation (OR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.4), anemia before delivery (OR = 3.4, 95% CI: 1.8, 6.7), and not exclusively breastfeeding (OR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.0, 7.7). Risk scores were calculated by counting risk markers present. Likelihood ratios were determined for all possible risk scores of our algorithm and CDC’s algorithm. Anemia screening decisions differed depending on clinic anemia prevalence. For example, if low test thresholds are assumed, when clinic prevalence is 10%, women with risk scores >3 on the authors’ algorithm and >0 on CDC’s algorithm should be screened. The authors’ algorithm, in combination with prevalence information, can save clinics more money than CDC’s current algorithm because a broader range of likelihood ratios was obtained, indicating a better ability to distinguish high- from low-risk women. However, if resources are available, universal screening should be considered in high-prevalence settings.

anemia; Bayes theorem; hemoglobins; iron; mass screening; puerperium; risk assessment; sensitivity and specificity

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CI, confidence interval; LR, likelihood ratio; LR+, positive likelihood ratio; LR–, negative likelihood ratio.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.