BACKGROUND: The limitations and underlying assumptions of the capture-recapture methods have hindered their application in epidemiological settings, especially in evaluating the completeness of birth defects registries. This study explored the possibility of using birth certificates as the secondary data source in a simple two-source capture-recapture model to estimate the completeness of case ascertainment of the Congenital Malformations Registry (CMR) for selected major birth defects. METHODS: The CMR and the birth certificates were used as the primary and secondary sources, respectively. Children who were born in 1996-2001 and had selected major birth defects were identified from the two sources. The accuracy of the diagnoses was examined by comparing the individual birth defect categories of the children from the two sources. RESULTS: Discrepancies in birth defect categories in the two data sources and false positives in the birth certificates were the major problems encountered in estimating the completeness of the CMR using the simple two-source capture-recapture method. The estimated completeness for selected major birth defects was only about 71%. Stratified analyses resulted in relatively high estimated completeness for oral clefts (90%) and Down syndrome (88%). CONCLUSIONS Although the birth certificate data was not a good source for estimating the completeness of case ascertainment of the CMR using capture-recapture methods, the analyses provided reasonable estimates for some conditions that were relatively easy to identify and diagnose at birth, such as oral clefts and Down syndrome.
BACKGROUND: The limitations and underlying assumptions of the capture-recapture methods have hindered their application in epidemiological settings, especially in evaluating the completeness of birth defects registries. This study explored the possibility of using birth certificates as the secondary data source in a simple two-source capture-recapture model to estimate the completeness of case ascertainment of the Congenital Malformations Registry (CMR) for selected major birth defects. METHODS: The CMR and the birth certificates were used as the primary and secondary sources, respectively. Children who were born in 1996-2001 and had selected major birth defects were identified from the two sources. The accuracy of the diagnoses was examined by comparing the individual birth defect categories of the children from the two sources. RESULTS: Discrepancies in birth defect categories in the two data sources and false positives in the birth certificates were the major problems encountered in estimating the completeness of the CMR using the simple two-source capture-recapture method. The estimated completeness for selected major birth defects was only about 71%. Stratified analyses resulted in relatively high estimated completeness for oral clefts (90%) and Down syndrome (88%). CONCLUSIONS Although the birth certificate data was not a good source for estimating the completeness of case ascertainment of the CMR using capture-recapture methods, the analyses provided reasonable estimates for some conditions that were relatively easy to identify and diagnose at birth, such as oral clefts and Down syndrome.
Authors: Kimberly J Johnson; Susan E Carozza; Eric J Chow; Erin E Fox; Scott Horel; Colleen C McLaughlin; Beth A Mueller; Susan E Puumala; Peggy Reynolds; Julie Von Behren; Logan G Spector Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.822