Linking Birth and Infant Death Records With Assisted Reproductive Technology Data: Massachusetts, 1997–1998

  • Saswati Sunderam
  • Laura A. Schieve
  • Bruce Cohen
  • Zi Zhang
  • Gary Jeng
  • Meredith Reynolds
  • Victoria Wright
  • Christopher Johnson
  • Maurizio Macaluso
  • The Massachusetts Consortium for Assisted Reproductive Technology Epidemiologic Research (MCARTER)
Article

Objectives: To link data from the US assisted reproductive technology (ART) registry with the Massachusetts birth–infant death file to create a comprehensive dataset on the circumstances surrounding conception and maternal and infant outcomes for a population of ART-conceived infants. Methods: The authors sought to link data for 3704 ART-conceived live-born infants from 2703 deliveries in 1997–1998 involving Massachusetts resident mothers who gave birth in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, or Connecticut to their corresponding Massachusetts birth record using a two-stage algorithm. Maternal and infant dates of birth served as the primary linkage variables. Maternal names for a subset of the ART-conceived infants were obtained and used in the second stage of the algorithm to confirm a sample of records that matched in Stage I, to resolve duplicate matches, and to link unmatched records. Results: In Stage I, 78% of ART deliveries matched with only one Massachusetts record, 2% matched with two records, and 20% remained unmatched. Overall, the complete algorithm using maternal name data for a portion of records yielded an 89% linkage rate. Nearly all of the records that matched during Stage I that were evaluated with maternal name data in Stage II were confirmed as correctly linked. Conclusions: This project confirms that high-yield data linkage can be achieved in the absence of specific identifiers (e.g., name and social security number). Nonetheless, additional matches were achieved when name data were obtained. This linkage creates the first population-based file in the US capturing detailed information on ART births.

KEY WORDS:

birth certificates data linkage death certificates reproductive technology assisted 

Abbreviations

ASRM

American Society for Reproductive Medicine

ART

Assisted reproductive technology

CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DOB

Dates of birth; IDOB, Infant date of birth

MDOB

Maternal date of birth

SART

Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology

triplet/+

Triplet or higher order

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Medical Research International, The American Fertility Society Special Interest Group. In vitro fertilization/embryo transfer in the United States: 1985 and 1986 results from the national IVF/ET registry. Fertil Steril 1988;49:212–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2002 assisted reproductive technology success rates. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reynolds MA, Schieve LA, Martin JA, Jeng G, Macaluso M. Trends in multiple births conceived using assisted reproductive technology, United States, 1997–2000. Pediatrics 2003;111:1159–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Multiple gestation pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2000:15;1856–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiely JL. What is the population-based risk of preterm birth among twins and other multiples? Clin Obstet Gynecol 1998;41:3–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin JA, Park MM. Trends in twin and triplet births: 1980–97. Nat Vital Stat Rep 1999;47(24):1–16.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pharoah PO, Cooke T. Cerebral palsy and multiple births. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1996;75:F174–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Senat MV, Ancel PY, Bouvier-Colle MH, Breat G. How does multiple pregnancy affect maternal mortality and morbidity? Clin Obstet Gynecol 1998;41:78–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:1144–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002;346:731–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perri T, Chen R, Yoeli R, Merlob P, Orvieto R, Shalev Y, Ben-Rafael Z, Bar-Hava I. Are singleton assisted reproductive technology pregnancies at risk of prematurity? J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:245–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klemetti R, Gissler M, Hemminki E. Comparison of perinatal health of children born from IVF in Finland in the early and late 1990s. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2192–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dhont M, De Sutter P, Ruyssinck G, Martens G, Bekaert A. Perinatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction: A case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:688–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), Pub L No. 102-493, October 24, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of assisted reproductive technology—United States, 1996 and 1998. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002;51:97–101.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Impact of multiple births on low birthweight—Massachusetts, 1989–96. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48:289–92.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schieve LA, Wilcox LS, Zeitz J, Jeng G, Hoffman D, Brzyski R, Toner J, Grainger D, Tatham L, Younger B. Assessment of outcomes for assisted reproductive technology: Overview of issues and the U.S. experience in establishing a surveillance system. In: Vayena E, Rowe PJ, Griffin PD, (Eds.) Medical, ethical and social aspects of assisted reproduction. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2001:363–76.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu S, Wen S. Development of record linkage of hospital discharge data for the study of neonatal readmission. Chronic Dis Can 1999;20(2):77–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howe GR. Use of computerized record linkage in cohort studies. Epidemiol Rev 1998;20:112–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, Jeng G. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance- United States, 2002. MMWR Surveill Summ 2005;54:1–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saswati Sunderam
    • 1
  • Laura A. Schieve
    • 1
    • 4
  • Bruce Cohen
    • 2
  • Zi Zhang
    • 2
  • Gary Jeng
    • 1
  • Meredith Reynolds
    • 1
  • Victoria Wright
    • 1
  • Christopher Johnson
    • 1
  • Maurizio Macaluso
    • 1
  • The Massachusetts Consortium for Assisted Reproductive Technology Epidemiologic Research (MCARTER)
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Reproductive HealthNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Massachusetts Department of Public HealthBostonUSA
  3. 3.The member of clinics of MCARTER are Baystate Reproductive Medicine, Boston IVF, Fertility Center of New England, Massachusetts General Hospital, New England Fertility and Endocrinology Associates, Reproductive Science Center, and Women and Infants IVFBostonUSA
  4. 4.CDC Mailstop E-86AtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations