ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2024
Quality of registration of antenatal, intrapartum, and newborn information in the Georgian birth registry.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Georgian Birth Registry (GBR) is a comprehensive digital birth registry covering 99.8% of births nationwide. By law, registration in the GBR is mandatory, with data primarily transferred from medical records (MRs) by designated personnel at medical facilities. We aimed to assess the correspondence of the registration of selected variables between GBR and MRs.
methodsWe randomly selected 1,044 women who gave birth in 2018. Data were extracted from the GBR on 27 variables related to pregnancy, childbirth, and the newborn and individually linked to the MRs. We specifically compared the agreement of dichotomous, ordinal, and date variables between the GBR and the MRs to assess the consistency of individual registrations.
resultsOf the 27 dichotomous, ordinal, and date variables, 22 displayed more than 95% complete agreement with the information in the MRs. The prevalence of maternal morbidity registered in the MRs was lower than expected, while the proportion of fetuses with transverse lies was higher than expected.
conclusionsMost antenatal, intrapartum, and newborn information registered in the GBR has satisfactory agreement with the MRs, with error typical for single data entry system. The lower-than-expected prevalence of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders, and postpartum hemorrhage registered in the MRs, as well as the higher-than-expected prevalence of transverse fetal presentation, warrants in-depth investigation to ensure that the quality of care is satisfactory and to further improve registration in both the MRs and GBR. Therefore, our findings indicate that while the agreement between the GBR and MRs is generally high, MRs are sometimes incomplete or incorrect for certain conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.