At 18:05 27/04/05 +0100, Ted Harding wrote (in part):
>On "gravida", I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong (and I shall
>then update my database), but I thought that "gravid" simply meant
>"pregnant", so that for instance a "primigravida" refers to a
>woman who is pregnant for the first time. In her case, presumably
>gravidity = 1 but parity = 0. Or, if a woman has already had
>2 normal pregancies culminating in successful normal birth, and
>is now pregnant for the third time, then (in my way of thinking)
>she too would have gravidity = 3 and parity = 2 (as in your
>example, but not meaning the same). Or does "gravidity" have
>to refer to preganancies now over and done with?
It can only be a matter of time before this branch of the discussion gets
my knuckles wrapped again (even if it's more 'on-topic' than the politics
of car manufacturing!), but ...
Yes, everything you say is totally correct, but it's not in any way at odds
with anything I said - you've just produced further examples which indicate
even more of the potential confusion. Yes, gravidity = 3 and parity = 2
can mean that the third pregnancy is still in progress OR that all three
pregnancies are 'over and done with' but that one did not result in
conventional labour - i.e. the pregnancy terminated (or WAS terminated)
fairly early. Or, at least, that's how the word-game was played when I was
last involved with it!
>Nowadays, birth without "bringing forth" is more routine
>(as we have been discussing). So one would expect that
>"parity" should refer to numbers of times a child comes
>into the world, whatever the pathway of final emergence.
In terms of all sensible people, it does!
>But, where John's pedants are concerned, what term do they
>suggest for the number of such occasions where the birth
>was not normal?
I can't say I've ever heard any term used! However, it's an important
distinction which could be useful. It would be perfectly 'normal' to hear
medical people say that problems such as uterine prolapse and urinary
problems are common in 'multiparous' women - but, of course, that would
actually be totally incorrect if all their deliveries had been by Caesarian
Section.
>Sorry to appear to drift off topic, but it does refelect
>an underlying concern that people should know what is
>heing talked about, especially when statistical facts
>and figures are being discussed.
I agree. Understanding of underlying subject matter (including the
vocabulary), as well as 'the numbers', is so often crucial to optimal (or
even correct/ appropriate) involvement of a statistician. Examples are
everywhere. In one of the 'off-list' parts of this discussion, someone
complained that, when attempting to obtain some maternity statistics, his
references to 'operative delivery' were repeatedly interpreted as relating
only to Caesarian Sections - which, of course, is how most medical people
_would_ interpret the phrase. Also, in the 'maternal age' statistics that
Ray posted earlier today, it is a great shame that the person who prepared
the statistics 'trichotomised' age in the way they did - presumably not
realising that there was a group of 'very young mothers' (lost in amongst
the '<25 years' group) who might be of specific interest..
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK [log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|