Browsing by Author "Rao, Sowmya R."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries
    (BMJ, 2023-09-20) Patel, Archana; Bann, Carla M.; Thorsten, Vanessa R.; Rao, Sowmya R.; Lokangaka, Adrien; Tshefu Kitoto, Antoinette; Bauserman, Melissa; Figueroa, Lester; Krebs, Nancy F.; Esamai, Fabian; Bucher, Sherri; Saleem, Sarah; Goldenberg, Robert L.; Chomba, Elwyn; Carlo, Waldemar A.; Goudar, Shivaprasad; Derman, Richard; Koso-Thomas, Marion; McClure, Elizabeth; Hibberd, Patricia L.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Objectives: We examined gestational age (GA) estimates for live and still births, and prematurity rates based on last menstrual period (LMP) compared with ultrasonography (USG) among pregnant women at seven sites in six low-resource countries. Design: Prospective cohort study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study included data from the Global Network's population-based Maternal and Newborn Health Registry which follows pregnant women in six low-income and middle-income countries (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia). Participants in this analysis were 42 803 women, including their 43 230 babies, who registered for the study in their first trimester based on GA estimated either by LMP or USG and had a live or stillbirth with an estimated GA of 20-42 weeks. Outcome measures: GA was estimated in weeks and days based on LMP and/or USG. Prematurity was defined as GA of 20 weeks+0 days through 36 weeks+6 days, calculated by both USG and LMP. Results: Overall, average GA varied ≤1 week between LMP and USG. Mean GA for live births by LMP was lower than by USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI) = -0.23 (-0.29 to -0.17) weeks). Among stillbirths, a higher GA was estimated by LMP than USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI)= 0.42 (0.11 to 0.72) weeks). Preterm birth rates for live births were significantly higher when dated by LMP (adjusted rate difference (95% CI)= 4.20 (3.56 to 4.85)). There was no significant difference in preterm birth rates for stillbirths. Conclusion: The small differences in GA for LMP versus USG in the Guatemalan and Indian sites suggest that LMP may be a useful alternative to USG for GA dating during the first trimester until availability of USG improves in those areas. Further research is needed to assess LMP for first-trimester GA dating in other regions with limited access to USG.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluating the effect of care around labor and delivery practices on early neonatal mortality in the Global Network's Maternal and Newborn Health Registry
    (Springer Nature, 2020-11-30) Patel, Archana B.; Simmons, Elizabeth M.; Rao, Sowmya R.; Moore, Janet; Nolen, Tracy L.; Goldenberg, Robert L.; Goudar, Shivaprasad S.; Somannavar, Manjunath S.; Esamai, Fabian; Nyongesa, Paul; Garces, Ana L.; Chomba, Elwyn; Mwenechanya, Musaku; Saleem, Sarah; Naqvi, Farnaz; Bauserman, Melissa; Bucher, Sherri; Krebs, Nancy F.; Derman, Richard J.; Carlo, Waldemar A.; Koso‑ThomasMcClure, Marion Elizabeth M.; Hibberd, Patricia L.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: Neonatal deaths in first 28-days of life represent 47% of all deaths under the age of five years globally and are a focus of the United Nation's (UN's) Sustainable Development Goals. Pregnant women are delivering in facilities but that does not indicate quality of care during delivery and the postpartum period. The World Health Organization's Essential Newborn Care (ENC) package reduces neonatal mortality, but lacks a simple and valid composite index that measures its effectiveness. Methods: Data on 5 intra-partum and 3 post-partum practices (indicators) recommended as part of ENC, routinely collected in NICHD's Global Network's (GN) Maternal Newborn Health Registry (MNHR) between 2010 and 2013, were included. We evaluated if all 8 practices (Care around Delivery - CAD), combined as an index was associated with reduced early neonatal mortality rates (days 0-6 of life). Results: A total of 150,848 live births were included in the analysis. The individual indicators varied across sites. All components were present in 19.9% births (range 0.4 to 31% across sites). Present indicators (8 components) were associated with reduced early neonatal mortality [adjusted RR (95% CI):0.81 (0.77, 0.85); p < 0.0001]. Despite an overall association between CAD and early neonatal mortality (RR < 1.0 for all early mortality): delivery by skilled birth attendant; presence of fetal heart and delayed bathing were associated with increased early neonatal mortality. Conclusions: Present indicators (8 practices) of CAD were associated with a 19% reduction in the risk of neonatal death in the diverse health facilities where delivery occurred within the GN MNHR. These indicators could be monitored to identify facilities that need to improve compliance with ENC practices to reduce preventable neonatal deaths. Three of the 8 indicators were associated with increased neonatal mortality, due to baby being sick at birth. Although promising, this composite index needs refinement before use to monitor facility-based quality of care in association with early neonatal mortality.