American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access published online on March 14, 2008
American Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/aje/kwn041
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Invited Commentary: The Hidden Population in Perinatal Epidemiology
1 Department of Epidemiology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
2 Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Correspondence to Dr. Nigel Paneth, B 636 West Fee Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 (e-mail: paneth{at}msu.edu).
Received for publication December 5, 2007. Accepted for publication December 21, 2007.
Several recent papers have argued that understanding of pathologic perinatal processes may be advanced by considering, in varying ways, the population of fetuses still in utero. Initially invoked by Yudkin et al. (Lancet 1987;1:1192–4) as the optimum denominator for intrapartum stillbirths, fetuses in utero (or "fetuses at risk") have also been of interest because of their patterns of growth, especially in comparison to infants born after varying durations of gestation. The paper by Hutcheon and Platt (Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:000–00) extends work that compares growth in infants born prematurely with that in infants continuing in utero and investigates the biases in analyses that can emerge from failure to consider the selection for impaired fetal growth characteristic of many prematurely born infants. Although the conceptual basis of this perspective is sound, in-utero fetal growth standards from serial ultrasonographic measurements in pregnancy are often based on small and highly selected samples. Some authors have proposed "fetuses at risk" as the appropriate denominator for postnatal phenomena related to premature birth, such as neonatal mortality and cerebral palsy. This application is problematic; in such situations, the denominator population differs from infants with the outcome in not having experienced adjustment to postnatal life, a potentially important determinant of outcome, especially in premature infants. The fetuses-at-risk concept is important in perinatal epidemiology and has implications for obstetric practice, but it must be handled with caution.
bias (epidemiology); fetal growth retardation; gestational age; infant, small for gestational age; pre-eclampsia; pregnancy; premature birth; ultrasonography, prenatal
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. D. Parker and M. A. Klebanoff Invited Commentary: Crossing Curves--It's Time to Focus on Gestational Age-specific Mortality Am. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2009; 169(7): 798 - 801. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Hutcheon and R. W. Platt Hutcheon and Platt Respond to "The Hidden Population in Perinatal Epidemiology" Am. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2008; 167(7): 797 - 798. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|