Postterm Pregnancy: Incidence & Prevalence Worldwide & US

  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the prevalence of postterm pregnancy, highlighting a discrepancy in statistics between global and U.S. figures. The Wikipedia article indicates that postterm pregnancies account for approximately 7% of pregnancies worldwide, while U.S. data suggests a much lower incidence of 0.4%. This raises questions about the accuracy of these figures and the potential reasons for the differences, particularly in relation to the common practice of induced labor. Induced births are prevalent in the U.S., with estimates ranging from 23% to 30% of all pregnancies, especially for postterm cases due to associated risks for both mother and infant. The conversation suggests that while induced labor may explain some variations in statistics, it does not fully account for the significant gap between the global and U.S. prevalence rates.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
TL;DR Summary
perhaps I am parsing Wikipedia's phrasing incorrectly; if not, is there really such a difference? (7% and 0.4%) I could not find the 0.4% figure elsewhere (and I do not have access to the article cited after the 0.4%), although I found the 7% figure elsewhere.
"In the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postterm_pregnancy#Epidemiology I read:
Prevalence of postterm pregnancy ... The incidence is approximately 7%. Postterm pregnancy occurs in 0.4% of pregnancies approximately in the United States according to birth certificate data."
This seems to say that postterm preganancies are 7% of pregnancies worldwide (a figure I also found in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991404/), and then that it is 0.4% in the US (although the link just mentioned gives higher figures). Is this what it is saying and if so, is it correct, and if so, why the discrepancy?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
How common is induced birth in the US? In some countries it is quite common to schedule induced births within 2 weeks of being overdue. In those countries you’d expect the percentage of post term births to be much lower than the global average.
 
Ryan_m_b said:
How common is induced birth in the US? In some countries it is quite common to schedule induced births within 2 weeks of being overdue.

That is probably the key point. From my limited experience, it is pretty common. From the wikipedia article that was posted in the OP:
Wikipedia said:
Postterm pregnancy
Other namesPost-term, postmaturity, prolonged pregnancy, post-dates pregnancy, postmature birth
SpecialtyObstetrics
Postterm pregnancy is the condition of a woman who has not yet delivered her baby after 42 weeks of gestation, two weeks beyond the median duration of a human pregnancy of about 40 weeks (mean duration of pregnancy varies by parity).[1] Post-mature births can carry risks for both the mother and the infant, including fetal malnutrition. After the 42nd week of gestation, the placenta, which supplies the baby with nutrients and oxygen from the mother, starts aging and will eventually fail.
 
Last edited:
Ryan_m_b, that is a good point. It appears that the statistics for induced labor in the US are a bit fuzzy: in http://www.nationalpartnership.org/...ternity/quick-facts-about-labor-induction.pdf the estimates go from 23% to 30% of all pregnancies in the US.
berkeman: so, yes, induced labor in the US is quite common, especially for postterm pregnancy due to the dangers you listed.
However, whereas this could account for some discrepancy, I am not sure that this could account for the discrepancy between the figures of 7% or 4% down to 0.4%.
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top