D Wellesley1, P Boyd, H Dolk, S Pattenden. 1. Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton SO16 5YA, UK. dgwsoton.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Congenital anomaly registers collect data on antenatally and postnatally detected anomalies for surveillance, research, and public health purposes. Each anomaly is coded using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-9/ICD-10) based on body systems, allowing accurate comparisons between registers for individual anomalies. When commencing an environmental, epidemiological study, it became clear to us that there is no standard classification that takes aetiology into account. This paper describes a new classification for use in studies addressing aetiology. METHOD: A classification system was evolved and piloted using cases in a study of geographical variation in congenital anomaly prevalence.1 Cases that were difficult to categorise were noted, and after discussion with a team of experts, the classification was adjusted accordingly. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A robust, hierarchical method of classifying birth defects into eight categories has been produced, for use at source of data registration in conjunction with, but independent of, ICD coding.
BACKGROUND:Congenital anomaly registers collect data on antenatally and postnatally detected anomalies for surveillance, research, and public health purposes. Each anomaly is coded using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-9/ICD-10) based on body systems, allowing accurate comparisons between registers for individual anomalies. When commencing an environmental, epidemiological study, it became clear to us that there is no standard classification that takes aetiology into account. This paper describes a new classification for use in studies addressing aetiology. METHOD: A classification system was evolved and piloted using cases in a study of geographical variation in congenital anomaly prevalence.1 Cases that were difficult to categorise were noted, and after discussion with a team of experts, the classification was adjusted accordingly. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A robust, hierarchical method of classifying birth defects into eight categories has been produced, for use at source of data registration in conjunction with, but independent of, ICD coding.
Authors: Gerald F Cox; Joachim Bürger; Va Lip; Ulrike A Mau; Karl Sperling; Bai-Lin Wu; Bernhard Horsthemke Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2002-05-08 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Sonja A Rasmussen; Richard S Olney; Lewis B Holmes; Angela E Lin; Kim M Keppler-Noreuil; Cynthia A Moore Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2003-03
Authors: J Rankin; S Pattenden; L Abramsky; P Boyd; H Jordan; D Stone; M Vrijheid; D Wellesley; H Dolk Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Anthony Wemakor; Karen Casson; Ester Garne; Marian Bakker; Marie-Claude Addor; Larraitz Arriola; Miriam Gatt; Babak Khoshnood; Kari Klungsoyr; Vera Nelen; Mary O'Mahoney; Anna Pierini; Anke Rissmann; David Tucker; Breidge Boyle; Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg; Helen Dolk Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Malini DeSilva; Flor M Munoz; Mark Mcmillan; Alison Tse Kawai; Helen Marshall; Kristine K Macartney; Jyoti Joshi; Martina Oneko; Annette Elliott Rose; Helen Dolk; Francesco Trotta; Hans Spiegel; Sylvie Tomczyk; Anju Shrestha; Sonali Kochhar; Elyse O Kharbanda Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Flor M Munoz; Linda O Eckert; Mark A Katz; Philipp Lambach; Justin R Ortiz; Jorgen Bauwens; Jan Bonhoeffer Journal: Vaccine Date: 2015-09-19 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Ben G Armstrong; Helen Dolk; Sam Pattenden; Martine Vrijheid; Maria Loane; Judith Rankin; Chris E Dunn; Chris Grundy; Lenore Abramsky; Patricia A Boyd; David Stone; Diana Wellesley Journal: Emerg Themes Epidemiol Date: 2007-07-06