Assessment of Assisted Reproductive Technology Use Questions: Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Survey, 2004
Assessment of Assisted Reproductive Technology Use Questions: Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Survey, 2004
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/003335491212700507
复制
发表时间：
2012-09-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Schieve, Laura A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barradas, Danielle T.;Barfield, Wanda D.;Schieve, Laura A.
Objective.在生育治疗的帮助下怀孕的妇女多胎妊娠和伴随的不良妊娠结局的风险增加。妊娠风险评估监测系统（PRAMS）可用于评估与生育治疗相关的结果，但先前的一项研究表明，PRAMS关于生育治疗的问题高估了辅助生殖技术（ART）的使用2.6倍。这些PRAMS ART问题于2004年修订。我们比较了基于修订问题的流行率估计值与国家ART监测系统（NASS）的计数，NASS是描述ART流行率的标准。我们比较了2004年三个州（佛罗里达、马里兰州和犹他州）通过ART受孕的婴儿的加权PRAMS患病率估计值与NASS的相应计数。我们还比较了这些数据的年龄，胎次，多，和婴儿出生体重。根据PRAMS确定的估计ART分娩总数为3，672（95%置信区间为2，210，5，134），而向NASS报告的ART分娩为2，939。PRAMS估计值和NASS计数因母亲年龄（p=0.02）和产次（p= 40岁）而异，ART使用率被高估70%（27.9% vs. 16.5%，p
Objective. Women who conceive with the assistance of fertility treatments are at increased risk for multiple-gestation pregnancies and accompanying adverse pregnancy outcomes. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) can be used to assess outcomes associated with fertility treatments, but a previous study suggested that PRAMS questions about fertility treatments overestimated use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) by 2.6 times. These PRAMS ART questions were revised in 2004. We compared prevalence estimates based on revised questions with counts from the National ART Surveillance System (NASS), the standard for describing ART prevalence.Methods. We compared weighted PRAMS prevalence estimates of births conceived by using ART with corresponding counts from NASS for three states (Florida, Maryland, and Utah) for 2004. We also compared these data by age, parity, plurality, and infant birthweight.Results. Estimated ART births determined from PRAMS totaled 3,672 (95% confidence interval 2,210, 5,134), compared with 2,939 ART births reported to NASS. PRAMS estimates and NASS counts differed by maternal age (p=0.02) and parity (p= 40 years overestimated ART use by 70% (27.9% vs. 16.5%, p