Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

Professor Mireille B Toledano

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Mohn Chair; Population Child Health & Director-Mohn Centre
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

m.toledano Website

 
 
//

Location

 

525Medical SchoolSt Mary's Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Ghosh:2016:10.1136/archdischild-2015-309540,
author = {Ghosh, RE and Ashworth, DC and Hansell, AL and Garwood, K and Elliott, P and Toledano, MB},
doi = {10.1136/archdischild-2015-309540},
journal = {Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal edition},
pages = {F451--F457},
title = {Routinely collected English birth data sets: comparisons and recommendations for reproductive epidemiology.},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-309540},
volume = {101},
year = {2016}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BACKGROUND: In England there are four national routinely collected data sets on births: Office for National Statistics (ONS) births based on birth registrations; Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) deliveries (mothers' information); HES births (babies' information); and NHS Numbers for Babies (NN4B) based on ONS births plus gestational age and ethnicity information. This study describes and compares these data, with the aim of recommending the most appropriate data set(s) for use in epidemiological research and surveillance. METHODS: We assessed the completeness and quality of the data sets in relation to use in epidemiological research and surveillance and produced detailed descriptive statistics on common reproductive outcomes for each data set including temporal and spatial trends. RESULTS: ONS births is a high quality complete data set but lacks interpretive and clinical information. HES deliveries showed good agreement with ONS births but HES births showed larger amounts of missing or unavailable data. Both HES data sets had improved quality from 2003 onwards, but showed some local spatial variability. NN4B showed excellent agreement with ONS and HES deliveries for the years available (2006-2010). Annual number of births increased by 17.6% comparing 2002 with 2010 (ONS births). Approximately 6% of births were of low birth weight (2.6% term low birth weight) and 0.5% were stillbirths. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected data on births provide a valuable resource for researchers. ONS and NN4B offer the most complete and accurate record of births. Where more detailed clinical information is required, HES deliveries offers a high quality data set that captures the majority of English births.
AU  - Ghosh,RE
AU  - Ashworth,DC
AU  - Hansell,AL
AU  - Garwood,K
AU  - Elliott,P
AU  - Toledano,MB
DO  - 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309540
EP  - 457
PY  - 2016///
SN  - 1359-2998
SP  - 451
TI  - Routinely collected English birth data sets: comparisons and recommendations for reproductive epidemiology.
T2  - Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal edition
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-309540
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/30618
VL  - 101
ER  -
Download