These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data.
    Author: Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Schembri ME, Keyzer JM, Gilbert WM.
    Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Apr; 194(4):992-1001. PubMed ID: 16580288.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the validity of obstetric procedures and diagnoses in California patient discharge data. STUDY DESIGN: We randomly sampled 1611 deliveries from 52 of 267 California hospitals that performed more than 678 eligible deliveries in 1992 to 1993. We compared hospital-reported procedures and diagnoses against our recoding of the same records. RESULTS: Cesarean, forceps, and vacuum delivery were accurately reported, with sensitivities and positive predictive values exceeding 90%. Episiotomy was underreported (70% sensitivity). Cesarean indications were reported with at least 60% sensitivity, except uterine inertia, herpes, and long labor. Among comorbidities, sensitivity exceeded 60% for chorioamnionitis, diabetes, premature labor, preeclampsia, and intrauterine death. Sensitivity was poor (less than 60%) for anemia, asthma, thyroid disorders, mental disorders, drug abuse, genitourinary infections, obesity, fibroids, excessive fetal growth, hypertension, premature rupture, polyhydramnios, and postdates. CONCLUSION: The validity of hospital-reported obstetric procedures and diagnoses varies, with moderate to high accuracy for some codes but poor accuracy for others.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]