Composite neonatal morbidity indicators using hospital discharge data: A systematic review

Abstract

Background: Neonatal morbidity is associated with lifelong impairments, but the absence of a consensual definition and the need for large data sets limit research. Objectives:To inform initiatives to define standard outcomes for research, we reviewed composite neonatal morbidity indicators derived from routine hospital discharge data. Data sources:PubMed (updated on October 12, 2018). The search algorithm was based on three components: "morbidity," "neonatal," and "hospital discharge data." Study selection and data extraction: Studies investigating neonatal morbidity using a composite indicator based on hospital discharge data were included. Indicators defined for specific conditions (eg congenital anomalies, maternal addictions) were excluded. The target population, objectives, component morbidities, diagnosis and procedure codes, validation methods, and prevalence of morbidity were extracted. Synthesis:For each study, we assessed construct validity by describing the methods used to select the indicator components and evaluated whether the authors assessed internal and external validity. We also calculated confidence intervals for the prevalence of the morbidity composite.Results: Seventeen studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Indicators targeted all (n = 4), low-/moderate-risk (n = 9), and very preterm (VPT, n = 4) infants. Components were similar for VPT infants, but domains and diagnosis codes within domains varied widely for all and low-/moderate-risk infants. Component selection was described for 8/17 indicators and some form of validation reported for 12/17. Neonatal morbidity prevalence ranged from 4.6% to 9.0% of all infants, 0.4% to 8.0% of low-/ moderate-risk infants, and 17.8% to 61.0% of VPT infants. Conclusions:Multiple neonatal morbidity indicators based on hospital discharge data have been used for research, but their heterogeneity limits comparisons between studies. Standard neonatal outcome measures are needed for benchmarking and synthesis of research results. K E Y

The risks of advancing parental age on neonatal morbidity and mortality are U- or J-shaped for both maternal and paternal ages

“…Multiple NMM often occur together and there has been considerable interest in using composite scores derived from multiple NMM. However, there has been no consistency in the implementation of composite outcomes and the general approach has, thus far, proven to be too heterogenous [21]. As an alternative, the current study could be followed up with a Bayesian approach in which NMM are modeled as a multivariate distribution and the correlations among the NMM are objectively estimated.…”

Measuring severe neonatal morbidity using hospital discharge data in France

“…A recent review, comparing existing morbidity indicators based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis and procedure codes, showed that some were narrowly defined, covering only specific morbidities (i.e. respiratory complications) or focussed only on specific populations, such as very preterm births or uncomplicated term births 9 . In contrast, the Neonatal Adverse Outcome Indicator (NAOI), developed by Lain and colleagues using Australian data, aimed to cover all major severe neonatal morbidities and is intended to apply to the total population of viable live births 10,11 .…”

Echocardiography-Guided Management of Preterms With Patent Ductus Arteriosus Influences the Outcome: A Cohort Study

“…Data GA, BW, gender, type of delivery, antenatal steroid administration, congenital disorders, and occurrence of all relevant obstetric information were collected ( 21 – 23 ). Apgar score at 5 min after birth, pH on cord blood, respiratory distress syndrome, occurrence of hypotension, feeding tolerance, and other gastrointestinal disorders were also prospectively recorded ( 22 , 24 , 25 ). Data on survival, morbidity, and duration of hospital stay were collected in a separate and codified data form.…”