Hospital-level variation in racial disparities in low-risk nulliparous cesarean delivery rates.
Nationally, rates of cesarean delivery are highest among Black patients compared with other racial/ethnic groups. These observed inequities are a relatively new phenomenon (in the 1980s, cesarean delivery rates among Black patients were lower than average), indicating an opportunity to narrow the gap. Cesarean delivery rates vary greatly among hospitals, masking racial disparities that are unseen when rates are reported in aggregate.
This study aimed to explore reasons for the current large Black-White disparity in first-birth cesarean delivery rates by first examining the hospital-level variation in first-birth cesarean delivery rates among different racial/ethnic groups. We then identified hospitals that had low first-birth cesarean delivery rates among Black patients and compared them with hospitals with high rates. We sought to identify differences in facility or patient characteristics that could explain the racial disparity.
A population cross-sectional study was performed on 1,267,493 California live births from 2018 through 2020 using birth certificate data linked with maternal patient discharge records. Annual nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery (first-birth) rates were calculated for the most common racial/ethnic groups statewide and for each hospital. Self-identified race/ethnicity categories as selected on the birth certificate were used. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals for first-birth cesarean delivery comparing 2019 with 2015 were estimated using a log-binomial model for each racial/ethnic group. Patient and hospital characteristics were compared between hospitals with first-birth cesarean delivery rates <23.9% for Black patients and hospitals with rates ≥23.9% for Black patients.
Hospitals with at least 30 nulliparous term singleton vertex Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White patients each were identified. Black patients had a very different distribution, with a significantly higher rate (28.4%) and wider standard deviation (7.1) and interquartile range (6.5) than other racial groups (P<.01). A total of 29 hospitals with a low first-birth cesarean delivery rate among Black patients were identified using the Healthy People 2020 target of 23.9% and compared with 106 hospitals with higher rates. The low-rate group had a cesarean delivery rate of 19.9%, as opposed to 30.7% in the higher-rate group. There were no significant differences between the groups in hospital characteristics (ownership, delivery volume, neonatal level of care, proportion of midwife deliveries) or patient characteristics (age, education, insurance, onset of prenatal care, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes mellitus). Among the 106 hospitals that did not meet the target for Black patients, 63 met it for White patients with a mean rate of 21.4%. In the same hospitals, the mean rate for Black patients was 29.5%. Among Black patients in the group that did not meet the 23.9% target, there were significantly higher rates of all cesarean delivery indications: labor dystocia, fetal concern (spontaneous labor), and no labor (eg, macrosomia), which are all indications with a high degree of subjectivity.
The statewide cesarean delivery rate of Black patients is significantly higher and has substantially greater hospital variation compared with other racial or ethnic groups. The lack of difference in facility or patient characteristics between hospitals with low cesarean delivery rates among Black patients and those with high rates suggests that unconscious bias and structural racism potentially play important roles in creating these racial differences.
Main EK
，Chang SC
，Tucker CM
，Sakowski C
，Leonard SA
，Rosenstein MG
... -
《-》
Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.
Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided.
(1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS?
Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.
Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS.
Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments.
Level III, diagnostic study.
Lee CC
，Chen CW
，Yen HK
，Lin YP
，Lai CY
，Wang JL
，Groot OQ
，Janssen SJ
，Schwab JH
，Hsu FM
，Lin WH
... -
《-》
Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy.
Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may help improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes (such as fewer preterm birth and low birthweight babies) and reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (such as severe postpartum haemorrhage).
To examine whether vitamin D supplementation alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins and minerals given to women during pregnancy can safely improve certain maternal and neonatal outcomes.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (which includes results of comprehensive searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and relevant conference proceedings) (3 December 2022). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effect of supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with other micronutrients for women during pregnancy in comparison to placebo or no intervention.
Two review authors independently i) assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, ii) assessed trustworthiness based on pre-defined criteria of scientific integrity, iii) extracted data from included studies, and iv) assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
The previous version of this review included 30 studies; in this update, we have removed 20 of these studies to 'awaiting classification' following assessments of trustworthiness, one study has been excluded, and one new study included. This current review has a total of 10 included studies, 117 excluded studies, 34 studies in awaiting assessment, and seven ongoing studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. This removal of the studies resulted in evidence that was downgraded to low-certainty or very low-certainty due to study design limitations, inconsistency between studies, and imprecision. Supplementation with vitamin D compared to no intervention or a placebo A total of eight studies involving 2313 pregnant women were included in this comparison. We assessed four studies as having a low risk of bias for most domains and four studies as having high risk or unclear risk of bias for most domains. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D during pregnancy compared to placebo or no intervention on pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 1.33; 1 study, 165 women), gestational diabetes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.03 to 8.28; 1 study, 165 women), preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.33; 3 studies, 1368 women), nephritic syndrome (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 study, 135 women), or hypercalcaemia (1 study; no cases reported). Supplementation with vitamin D during pregnancy may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage; however, only one study reported this outcome (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 1 study, 1134 women; low-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of low birthweight; however, the upper CI suggests that an increase in risk cannot be ruled out (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.08; 3 studies, 371 infants; low-certainty evidence). Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium compared to no intervention or a placebo One study involving 84 pregnant women was included in this comparison. Overall, this study was at moderate to high risk of bias. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and maternal adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D and calcium on preterm birth (RR not estimable; very low-certainty evidence) or for low birthweight (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 14.94; very low-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo or no intervention. Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium + other vitamins and minerals versus calcium + other vitamins and minerals (but no vitamin D) One study involving 1298 pregnant women was included in this comparison. We assessed this study as having a low risk of bias in all domains. Pre-eclampsia was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D, calcium, and other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy compared to no vitamin D on gestational diabetes (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.73; very low-certainty evidence), maternal adverse events (hypercalcaemia no events and hypercalciuria RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.97; very low-certainty evidence), preterm birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence), or low birthweight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.51; low-certainty evidence).
This updated review using the trustworthy assessment tool removed 21 studies from the previous update and added one new study for a total of 10 included studies. In this setting, supplementation with vitamin D alone compared to no intervention or a placebo resulted in very uncertain evidence on pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, or nephritic syndrome. It may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage; however, only one study reported this outcome. It may also reduce the risk of low birthweight; however, the upper CI suggests that an increase in risk cannot be ruled out. Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium versus placebo or no intervention resulted in very uncertain evidence on preterm birth and low birthweight. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and maternal adverse events were not reported in the only study included in this comparison. Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium + other vitamins and minerals versus calcium + other vitamins and minerals (but no vitamin D) resulted in very uncertain evidence on gestational diabetes and maternal adverse events (hypercalciuria) and uncertain evidence on preterm birth and low birthweight. Pre-eclampsia was not reported in the only study included in this comparison. All findings warrant further research. Additional rigorous, high-quality, and larger randomised trials are required to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, particularly in relation to the risk of maternal adverse events.
Palacios C
，Kostiuk LL
，Cuthbert A
，Weeks J
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
