Worth the paper it's written on? A cross-sectional study of Medical Certificate of Stillbirth accuracy in the UK (2023)

Type of publication:Journal article

Author(s):Rimmer MP; Henderson I; *Parry-Smith W; Raglan O; Tamblyn J; Heazell AEP; Higgins LE; UKARCOG NESTT working group authors

Citation:International Journal of Epidemiology, 2023, 52(1) pages 295-308

Abstract:Background: The Medical Certificate of Stillbirth (MCS) records data about a baby's death after 24 weeks of gestation but before birth. Major errors that could alter interpretation of the MCS were widespread in two UK-based regional studies. Methods: A multicentre evaluation was conducted, examining MCS issued 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 in 76 UK obstetric units. A systematic case-note review of stillbirths was conducted by Obstetric and Gynaecology trainees, generating individual 'ideal MCSs' and comparing these to the actual MCS issued. Anonymized central data analysis described rates and types of error, agreement and factors associated with major errors. Results: There were 1120 MCSs suitable for assessment, with 126 additional submitted data sets unsuitable for accuracy analysis (total 1246 cases). Gestational age demonstrated 'substantial' agreement [K = 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.76)]. Primary cause of death (COD) showed 'fair' agreement [K = 0.26 (95% CI 0.24-0.29)]. Major errors [696/1120; 62.1% (95% CI 59.3-64.9%)] included certificates issued for fetal demise at <24 weeks' gestation [23/696; 3.3% (95% CI 2.2-4.9%)] or neonatal death [2/696; 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-1.1%)] or incorrect primary COD [667/696; 95.8% (95% CI 94.1-97.1%)]. Of 540/1246 [43.3% (95% CI 40.6-46.1%)] 'unexplained' stillbirths, only 119/540 [22.0% (95% CI 18.8-25.7%)] remained unexplained; the majority were redesignated as either fetal growth restriction [FGR: 195/540; 36.1% (95% CI 32.2-40.3%)] or placental insufficiency [184/540; 34.1% (95% CI 30.2-38.2)]. Overall, FGR [306/1246; 24.6% (95% CI 22.3-27.0%)] was the leading primary COD after review, yet only 53/306 [17.3% (95% CI 13.5-22.1%)] FGR cases were originally attributed correctly. Conclusion: This study demonstrates widespread major errors in MCS completion across the UK. MCS should only be completed following structured case-note review, with particular attention on the fetal growth trajectory.

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

Evaluating the quality and readability of online information on keratoconus treatment (2023)

Type of publication:Journal article

Author(s):Panthagani, Jesse; Hamze, Hisham; *Riaz, Afrah; Moussa, George

Citation:Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 58(2):150-155, 2023

Abstract:OBJECTIVE This study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of online resources on keratoconus treatment. METHODS A Google.com search was conducted on August 9, 2020; 32 web sites were selected for analysis. Popularity was assessed by Google and Alexa rank. The quality of web sites was analyzed using the quality criteria for consumer health information (DISCERN) tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, and the Health On the Net Code of Conduct Certification (HONcode). The readability of the web sites was assessed using the Fleschwebr hea Reading Ease, the Automated Readability Index, and the Fleschted Readability RESULTS: The JAMA benchmark scores, unlike the DISCERN scores, were correlated with the Google and Alexa rank. One web site (3.1%) met all the JAMA benchmark criteria, and 3 (9.3%) others had HON code certification. The median DISCERN score was 33 (range, 29.6-43.1; maximum possible, 80). Rnib.org.uk scored the highest at 57 (71.0%). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score (52.9 ± 7.1) corresponded to uk" n DIdifficult to read." Thirty-one web sites (96.8%) had a Flesch-Kincaid Grade higher than the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth grade level. The median Automated Readability Index score was 7 (range, 6.2-7.3). CONCLUSION The majority of online information currently available on keratoconus treatment is complex and highly variable. Rnib.org.uk is the best currently available source. Clinicians should inform patients on how to assess the credibility of online information and recommend suitable information sources