4.1 Article

Disparities and relative risk ratio of preterm birth in six Central and Eastern European centers

期刊

CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 119-127

出版社

MEDICINSKA NAKLADA
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2015.56.119

关键词

-

资金

  1. Association for Regional Cooperation in the Fields of Health, Science and Technology (RECOOP HST Association)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To identify characteristic risk factors of preterm birth in Central and Eastern Europe and explore the differences from other developed countries. Method Data on 33 794 term and 3867 preterm births (<37 wks.) were extracted in a retrospective study between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The study took place in 6 centers in 5 countries: Czech Republic, Hungary (two centers), Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine. Data on historical risk factors, pregnancy complications, and special testing were gathered. Preterm birth frequencies and relevant risk factors were analyzed using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software. Results All the factors selected for study (history of smoking, diabetes, chronic hypertension, current diabetes, preeclampsia, progesterone use, current smoking, body mass index, iron use and anemia during pregnancy), except the history of diabetes were predictive of preterm birth across all participating European centers. Preterm birth was at least 2.4 times more likely with smoking (history or current), three times more likely with preeclampsia, 2.9 times more likely with hypertension after adjusting for other covariates. It had inverse relationship with the significant predictor body mass index, with adjusted risk ratio of 0.8 to 1.0 in three sites. Iron use and anemia, though significant predictors of preterm birth, indicated mixed patterns for relative risk ratio. Conclusion Smoking, preeclampsia, hypertension and body mass index seem to be the foremost risk factors of preterm birth. Implications of these factors could be beneficial for design and implementation of interventions and improve the birth outcome.

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

4.1
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