Literature DB >> 17286297

Evaluation of the General Practice Research Database congenital heart defects prevalence: comparison to United Kingdom national systems.

Keele E Wurst1, Sara A Ephross, James Loehr, Douglas W Clark, Harry A Guess.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As part of an effort to validate the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) for future studies of medication use in pregnancy, this study examined whether the rates of all, and specific types of, congenital heart defects obtained from the GPRD are similar to those obtained from UK national systems.
METHODS: The prevalence rates of heart defects for 2001-2003 were determined from the GPRD and compared with both the National Congenital Anomaly System (NCAS) and the European Concerted Action of Congenital Anomalies and Twins (EUROCAT). Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated comparing the prevalence of all congenital heart defects as well as specific types of heart defects in the three data sources. In addition, the effect of the child's age on the frequency of heart defects in the GPRD was determined.
RESULTS: The prevalence of heart defects in the GPRD was more than twice as high as in the NCAS and slightly higher than in the EUROCAT. All differences were statistically significant. The prevalence of specific heart defects varied across the GPRD, NCAS, and EUROCAT. The measured prevalence of congenital heart defects in the GPRD was higher if calculated including children up to age 6.
CONCLUSIONS: The comparisons of the GPRD prevalence rates to national prevalence estimates demonstrate that the GPRD can serve as a more complete source of background prevalence for the most commonly occurring congenital heart defects, which is essential to properly assess possible associations between maternal exposures and congenital heart defects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17286297     DOI: 10.1002/bdra.20356

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol        ISSN: 1542-0752


  6 in total

Review 1.  Validity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nada F Khan; Sian E Harrison; Peter W Rose
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Phenotyping congenital anomalies in administrative hospital records.

Authors:  Ania Zylbersztejn; Maximiliane Verfürden; Pia Hardelid; Ruth Gilbert; Linda Wijlaars
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 3.980

3.  Sex prevalence of major congenital anomalies in the United Kingdom: a national population-based study and international comparison meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rachel Sokal; Laila J Tata; Kate M Fleming
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2014-02-12

4.  First trimester exposure to anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs and the risks of major congenital anomalies: a United Kingdom population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Lu Ban; Joe West; Jack E Gibson; Linda Fiaschi; Rachel Sokal; Pat Doyle; Richard Hubbard; Liam Smeeth; Laila J Tata
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Improving case ascertainment of congenital anomalies: findings from a prospective birth cohort with detailed primary care record linkage.

Authors:  Chrissy Bishop; Neil Small; Dan Mason; Peter Corry; John Wright; Roger C Parslow; Alan H Bittles; Eamonn Sheridan
Journal:  BMJ Paediatr Open       Date:  2017-11-12

6.  Seasonal Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy and the Risk of Major Congenital Malformations in Live-born Infants: A 2010-2016 Historical Cohort Study.

Authors:  Maria Peppa; Sara L Thomas; Caroline Minassian; Jemma L Walker; Helen I McDonald; Nick J Andrews; Stephen T Kempley; Punam Mangtani
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 9.079

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.