Sentences with phrase «compare death rates»

They compared the death rate at homebirth with the death rate in tertiary [high risk] facilities, but that's not what we want to know.

When we compare the death rate at homebirth of 2.06 / 1000 with the CDC death rate for low risk white women, ages 20 - 44, at term, with babies that are not growth restricted of 0.38, we find that homebirth has a death rate 5.5 X higher than hospital birth.

To find out, they compared death rates in New Jersey between 2004 and 2009 to concentrations of fine particulates — meaning especially tiny, nano - size bits.

Not exact matches

Death rates ballooned for almost every one of the top 10 causes of death compared to Death rates ballooned for almost every one of the top 10 causes of death compared to death compared to 2014.

I suspect that the number of deaths attributed communist dictators is a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated 90 % death rate of indigenous Americans when Christian explorers arrived in the New World.

We want to know how the death rate at homebirth compares with the death rate at all hospital births, not the death rate at tertiary facilities.

That makes it possible to compare neonatal death rates at home vs. in the hospital.

Intrapartum and neonatal death rates were compared with those in other North American studies of at least 500 births that were either planned out of hospital or comparable studies of low risk hospital births.

And I agree with you, that it would be completely inappropriate to say that homebirth has lower risk of death if the rate is say, 1 / 100 deaths, but 1/40, 000 in a hospital (obviously those are fictitious numbers used for illustration purposes)... but then you also have to account for the rate among individual OB's if you want a more accurate comparison, since there are multiple OBs typically in a hospital, being compared to only one midwife.

When compared with data on planned home birth in other industrialised countries, the perinatal death rate in Australia was much higher.

Don't forget about the 2005 study that compared outcomes of CPM attended births and hospital births, where the results showed similar IP and neonatal death rates for both, but CPM attended births fared better in other categories.

When this 20 % risk of death is compared to the 0.02 % rate of cord prolapse during labor at homebirth that might have a better outcome if it happened in hospital, this means that a low risk woman has a 1000 times higher chance of having a life threatening complication either to her life or her fetus / newborns life at planned hospital birth, than if she plans to have an attended homebirth with a well - trained practitioner.

The death rate for infants weighing 2500 g in 1985 - 8 was 5.7 per 1000 in home births compared with 3.6 per 1000 nationally (relative risk 1.6; 95 % confidence interval 1.1 to 2.4).

During 1985 - 90 there were just over 1.5 million births in Australia, giving a death rate (including late neonatal deaths) of 10.8 per 1000 compared with 7.1 per 1000 in planned home births (table 4).

While there was no difference in maternal complications and death rates, the rate of complications for babies, including death, was significantly lower in the planned cesarean group (1.6 % compared to 5.0 % in the vaginal breech group).

Without having looked into it, I am just wondering how the death rate of ONLY the higher risk women compares to similar risks at the hospital.

So it makes no sense whatsoever to try and compare the two groups as you are attempting to, since you have no way of knowing whether the difference in death rate is due to the place of birth or due to the underlying conditions which make the women in question high risk.

This is why it is appropriate to compare the term death rate in hospital births to home births in general.

The authors are well aware of this and that's why they had to be forced to acknowledge the death rates in the first place and why they refused to compare them to the appropriate comparison group, which is white women at term.

So she is comparing the all around death rate of home birth to a very specific death rate in hospital.

Compare with the death rate for low - risk pregnancies for babies born at home: 1.6 per thousand, which suggests around 32 per thousand permanently injured or 33 per thousand dead or permanently injured.

What I seem to gather is this: 1) The absolute risk of death from home birth is LOW, which is why homebirth advocates say that this study proves homebirth is «safe», however: 2) Compared to HOSPITAL births, the rate of death for homebirth is MUCH higher, and 3) The midwives reporting did so on a voluntary basis, so this isn't a study that is worth very much anyway.

All sorts of hilarious errors — using one type of data (ICD10 code data from «white healthy women» and essentially comparing the best possible data from one set of hospital data related to low - risk births to the worst possible single set of data related to high - risk at - home births)-- if you use the writer's same data source for hospital births but include all comers in 2007 - 2010 (not just low - risk healthy white women), the infant death rate is actually 6.14 per 1000, which is «300 % higher death rate than at - home births!»

Those who have actually read the Cheyney study can see that the authors compared their outcomes to many other studies on planned home birth and found no differences in intrapartum and neonatal death rates.

Compared with intermittent auscultation, continuous cardiotocography showed no significant improvement in overall perinatal death rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.23, n = 33,513, 11 trials), but was associated with a halving of neonatal seizures (RR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.31 to 0.80, n = 32,386, nine trials).

A study large enough to compare perinatal death rates accurately, if the annual rate of home births with regulated midwives in BC were to remain the same as it is today, would require 7 — 8 years of data collection.

These data report intrapartum and early neonatal death rates in full term women who intended to deliver out of hospital (and subsequently deliver either out of hospital or in hospital) at the start of labor compared with women who intended a hospital birth (thus «higher risk» pregnancies are included in this group) in 2012.

The death toll for c - sections are still higher compared to natural births and the recovery rate is undeniably slower with a lot more complications thrown in.

Our study showed that planned home birth attended by a registered midwife was associated with very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and adverse maternal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician.

A comparison of neonatal death rate of 1.3 / 1000 is still concerning compared to.3 / 1000 and is a more approriate comparision of like to like.

Yet, when I analyzed all of the studies that the Midwives» Alliance of North America (MANA) says comprise the best evidence for the safety of home birth, I found that every study that looked at nonhospital birth in the United States (and many of the studies that looked at other countries, as well) reported much higher death rates for babies when compared to similar hospital births.

Intrapartum death are not in the Wonder data so it isn't appropriate to add intrapartum death to neonatal for one group for an overall death rate of 2.06 / 1000 and compare it to the neonatal death of.3 / 1000.

Comparing intended home and hospital births in a cohort of 529688 low risk pregnancies in primary care in the Netherlands, de Jonge et al recently found low rates of perinatal mortality (intrapartum and neonatal death before 7 days) and admission to the NICU.11 They concluded that an intended home birth does not increase risks compared with an intended hospital birth in this population.

0.41 / 1000 early neonatal death rate in the MANA study compared to 0.46 / 1000 early neonatal death rate from national data; 0.35 / 1000 late neonatal death rate in the MANA study compared to 0.33 / 1000 late neonatal death rate from national data.

Between 1984 and 2004, ASSB infant mortality rates more than quadrupled, from 2.8 to 12.5 deaths per 100 000 live births, 15 which represents 513 infant deaths attributed to ASSB in 2004 compared with 103 in 1984.

When she compared Daviss and Johnson's home - birth figures with data on hospital births in 2000 from the National Center for Health Statistics, she found that for women with comparable risks, the perinatal death rate was almost three times higher in home births.

SIDS deaths have historically been observed more frequently in the colder months, and the fewest SIDS deaths occurred in the warmest months.23 In 1992, SIDS rates had an average seasonal change of 16.3 %, compared with only 7.6 % in 1999,24 which is consistent with reports from other countries.25

Maybe I'm wrong looking at the increased neonatal death rate in MANA's study, the increased risk of HIE in January 2014 ACOG, the increased risk of Apgars of 0 at 5 minutes (Grunebaum 2014) at homebirth as compared to hospital birth.

Higher rates of prelabor cesarean delivery are associated with lower perinatal death rates and both prelabor cesarean and labor induction are associated with late preterm birth.2 But it made me wonder how the overall changes compared to the United States.

Prior to this discovery, in most western industrialized countries SIDS rates ranged between approximately 1.5 to 4 infants per 1000 live births (compared to industrialized counties in Asia, such as Japan, which has the lowest SIDS rates in the world,.05 infants per 1000 live births21) with enormous increases amongst minorities, especially impoverished indigenous peoples such as the Maori of New Zealand, the Cree of Northern Canada, and the Aborigines of Australia.19, 22,23 Native peoples in the United States demonstrated similar exponentially increased SIDS (or SUDI rates, see below), as much as two to seven the times the rates found amongst white Americans.13, 19 Despite significant declines among almost all cultural and / or ethnic groups, SIDS rates still remain the leading cause of death for infants between one month and one year of life in the United States and elsewhere.13

«If you look at this country compared to any other industrialized country, we have one of the highest c - section rates of any,» Nan Strauss of Amnesty International told «Good Morning America, «and along with the increase is coming an increase in very severe complications, and in deaths as well.»

The IRR is not comparing black and white death rates, but there is evidence to show that because of stereotyping - for example expectations that black people will be irrational, inordinately strong or angry — they face a disproportionate level of force.

«He has previously described the Prime Minister as a dead woman walking who is on death row, and compared the Prime Minister to the living dead in a second - rate horror film.

The death rate is about 27 in 100,000 people, compared to roughly 16 per 100,000 people statewide, per the release.

In addition, an analysis of the corrected rates over the decade revealed that white women's rates of death from cervical cancer decreased by 0.8 percent per year, compared with an annual decrease of 3.6 percent in black women.

The SMRs were also consistent across all age groups, except for the age - group younger than 30 years in whom a non-significantly higher death rate was observed (SMR 1.65) compared to the general population.

A standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was calculated based on the actual death rate of the cyclists compared to the death rate in the age - matched French population according to the Human Mortality Database.

In women, death rates from breast and colorectal cancer will fall by 8 % and 7 % respectively, but lung and pancreatic cancer rates will rise by 5 % and 4 %; in 2016 the death rates from lung cancer in Europe will be 14.4 per 100,000 women (compared to 13.51 in 2011) and 5.6 per 100,000 for pancreatic cancer (compared to 5.39 in 2011).

When we compare the rates for 2014, when there are more elderly people now than there were in 1988, we have avoided a major rise in mortality rates, with over 250,000 deaths avoided this year,» said Prof La Vecchia.

Over 325,000 deaths will be avoided in 2015 compared with the 1988 peak rate.