1. Comparing very low birth weight versus very low gestation cohort methods for outcome analysis of high risk preterm infants
- Author
-
Koller-Smith, LIM, Shah, PS, Ye, XY, Sjörs, G, Wang, YA, Chow, SSW, Darlow, BA, Lee, SK, Håkanson, S, Lui, K, Marshall, P, Craven, P, Simmer, K, Stack, J, Knight, D, Watkins, A, Ramsden, A, Tan, K, Bawden, K, Downe, L, Singde, V, Stewart, M, Berry, A, Hunt, R, Kilburn, C, Dargaville, P, Paradisis, M, Evans, N, Reid, S, Cartwright, D, Kuschel, C, Doyle, L, Numa, A, Kecskes, Z, Badawi, N, Koh, G, Resnick, S, Tracy, M, Tarnow-Mordi, W, Andersen, C, Austin, N, Darlow, B, Broadbent, R, Corban, J, Mildenhall, L, Battin, M, Bourchier, D, Richardson, V, Haslam, R, Rajadurai, VS, Kajetanowicz, A, Synnes, A, Rouvinez-Bouali, N, Piedboeuf, B, Bertelle, V, Bulleid, B, Yee, W, Shivananda, S, Lee, KS, Seshia, M, Barrington, K, Lefebvre, F, McMillan, D, Andrews, W, Kovacs, L, Dow, K, da Silva, O, Riley, P, Peliowski, A, Aziz, K, Cieslak, Z, Kalapesi, Z, Sankaran, K, Faucher, D, Alvaro, R, Canning, R, Ojah, C, Monterrosa, L, Dunn, M, Sorokan, T, Harrison, A, Nwaesei, C, Adie, M, Håkansson, S, Segerdahl, N, Morad, T, Morén, S, Stenberg, Å, Simonsson, C, Stigsson, L, Christensen, JL, Åmasn, L, Ingemanson, F, österdal, L, Ellström, KG, Abrahamsson, T, Heimdahl, I, Hägg, T, Hedlund, A, Lund, EE, Koller-Smith, LIM, Shah, PS, Ye, XY, Sjörs, G, Wang, YA, Chow, SSW, Darlow, BA, Lee, SK, Håkanson, S, Lui, K, Marshall, P, Craven, P, Simmer, K, Stack, J, Knight, D, Watkins, A, Ramsden, A, Tan, K, Bawden, K, Downe, L, Singde, V, Stewart, M, Berry, A, Hunt, R, Kilburn, C, Dargaville, P, Paradisis, M, Evans, N, Reid, S, Cartwright, D, Kuschel, C, Doyle, L, Numa, A, Kecskes, Z, Badawi, N, Koh, G, Resnick, S, Tracy, M, Tarnow-Mordi, W, Andersen, C, Austin, N, Darlow, B, Broadbent, R, Corban, J, Mildenhall, L, Battin, M, Bourchier, D, Richardson, V, Haslam, R, Rajadurai, VS, Kajetanowicz, A, Synnes, A, Rouvinez-Bouali, N, Piedboeuf, B, Bertelle, V, Bulleid, B, Yee, W, Shivananda, S, Lee, KS, Seshia, M, Barrington, K, Lefebvre, F, McMillan, D, Andrews, W, Kovacs, L, Dow, K, da Silva, O, Riley, P, Peliowski, A, Aziz, K, Cieslak, Z, Kalapesi, Z, Sankaran, K, Faucher, D, Alvaro, R, Canning, R, Ojah, C, Monterrosa, L, Dunn, M, Sorokan, T, Harrison, A, Nwaesei, C, Adie, M, Håkansson, S, Segerdahl, N, Morad, T, Morén, S, Stenberg, Å, Simonsson, C, Stigsson, L, Christensen, JL, Åmasn, L, Ingemanson, F, österdal, L, Ellström, KG, Abrahamsson, T, Heimdahl, I, Hägg, T, Hedlund, A, and Lund, EE
- Abstract
© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Compared to very low gestational age (<32 weeks, VLGA) cohorts, very low birth weight (<1500 g; VLBW) cohorts are more prone to selection bias toward small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants, which may impact upon the validity of data for benchmarking purposes. Method: Data from all VLGA or VLBW infants admitted in the 3 Networks between 2008 and 2011 were used. Two-thirds of each network cohort was randomly selected to develop prediction models for mortality and composite adverse outcome (CAO: mortality or cerebral injuries, chronic lung disease, severe retinopathy or necrotizing enterocolitis) and the remaining for internal validation. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the models were compared. Results: VLBW cohort (24,335 infants) had twice more SGA infants (20.4% vs. 9.3%) than the VLGA cohort (29,180 infants) and had a higher rate of CAO (36.5% vs. 32.6%). The two models had equal prediction power for mortality and CAO (AUC 0.83), and similarly for all other cross-cohort validations (AUC 0.81-0.85). Neither model performed well for the extremes of birth weight for gestation (<1500 g and ≥32 weeks, AUC 0.50-0.65; ≥1500 g and <32 weeks, AUC 0.60-0.62). Conclusion: There was no difference in prediction power for adverse outcome between cohorting VLGA or VLBW despite substantial bias in SGA population. Either cohorting practises are suitable for international benchmarking.
- Published
- 2017