Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-02T04:35:47.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epidemiology of Prematurity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

John C. Sinclair
John C. Sinclair
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The two components of low birth weight — preterm delivery and fetal growth retardation — lead singly or in combination to a heavy burden of mortality, short- and long-term morbidity, and high medical and social costs. Although different types of long-term morbidity are still being identified, the primary focus of concern has been neurodevelopmental disability resulting from the cerebral palsies, hydrocephalus, and visual and auditory deficits among survivors of very low birth weight. Additional special risks in such infants include chronic lung disease, acute lower respiratory infections, and rehospitalization in infancy and early childhood.

Information

Type
Neonatal Disorders of Respiration
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 7 , Supplement S1 , January 1991 , pp. 2 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Adelstein, P., & Fedrick, J.Antenatal identification of women at increased risk of being delivered of a low birthweight infant at term. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1978, 85, 8–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Anderson, G. D., Blidner, I. N., McClemont, S., & Sinclair, J. C.Determinants of size at birth in a Canadian population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1984, 150, 236–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Behrman, R. E.Preventing low birth-weight: A pediatric perspective. The Journal of Pediatrics, 1985, 107, 842–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Belizan, J. M., Villar, J., Nardin, J. C., Malamud, J., & Sainz de Vicuna, L.Diagnosis of uterine growth retardation by a simple clinical method: Measurement of uterine height. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1978, 131, 643–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Brenner, W. E., Edelman, D. A., & Hendricks, C. H.A standard of fetal growth for the USA. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1976, 126, 555–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Committee to Study the Prevention of Low Birthweight, Institutes of Medicine. Preventing low birthweight. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1985, Appendix A, 241–55.Google Scholar
7.Creasy, R. K., Gummer, B. A., & Liggins, G. C.System for predicting spontaneous preterm birth. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1980, 55, 692–95.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Fedrick, J.Antenatal identification of women at high risk of spontaneous pre-term birth. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1986, 83, 351–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Kaminski, M., Goujard, J., & Rumeau-Rouguette, C.Prediction of low birthweight and prematurity by a multiple regression analysis with maternal characteristics known since the beginning of pregnancy. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1973, 2, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.King, J. F., Keirse, M. J. N. C., Grant, A., & Chalmers, I. Tocolysis—the case for and against. In Beard, R. W. & Sharp, F. (eds.), Preterm labour and its consequences. Proceeding of the 13th study group of the RCOG. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecolgists, 1985, 199–208.Google Scholar
11.Mugford, M.A comparison of reported differences in definitions of vital events and statistics. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 1983, 36, 201–12.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Neilson, J. P., Whitfield, C. R., & Aitchison, T. C.Screening for the small-for-date fetus. A two-stage ultrasonic examination schedule. British Medical Journal, 1980, 1203–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.OPCS Monitor. Birthweight statistics 1985. Reference DH3 86/2. London: Office of Population Census and Surveys, 10 21, 1986.Google Scholar
14.Paneth, N. Recent trends in preterm delivery rates in the United States. In Papiernik, E., Breart, G., Spina, N. (eds.), Prevention of preterm birth, Vol. 138. Colloque INSERM, 1986, 15–30.Google Scholar
15.Quaranta, P., Currell, R., Redman, C. W. G., & Robinson, J. S.Prediction of small-for date infants by measurement of symphysial-fundal height. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1981, 88, 115–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Ross, M. G., Hobel, C. J., Bragonier, J. R., & Bear, M. B.A simplified risk-scoring system of prematurity. The American Journal of Perinatology, 1986, 3, 339–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Rumeau-Rouguette, C. Evolution de la prematurite et de sa prevention en France. In Papiernik, E., Breart, G., & Spira, N. (eds.), Prevention of preterm birth, Vol. 138. Colloque INSERM, 138, 1986, 425–442.Google Scholar
18.Saunders, M. C., Dick, J. S., Brown, I. M., et al. The effects of hospital admission for bed rest on the duration of twin pregnancy: a randomized trial. Lancet, 1985, ii, 793–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Tanner, J. M., & Thomson, A. M.Standards for birthweight at gestation periods from 32 to 42 weeks allowing for maternal height and weight. Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 1970, 45, 566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Wennergren, M., Karlsson, K., & Olsson, T.A scoring system for antenatal identification of fetal growth retardation. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1982, 89, 520–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed