Suzan L Carmichael1, Chen Ma, Gary M Shaw. 1. California Research Division, March of Dimes Foundation, Oakland, California 94609, USA. scarmichael@marchofdimes.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of multiple measures of socioeconomic status (SES) with risks of orofacial clefts and conotruncal heart defects. DESIGN: Data were from a recent population-based case-control study conducted in California that included 608 patients with orofacial clefts, 277 patients with conotruncal heart defects, and 617 nonmalformed controls. RESULTS: The odds ratio for the worst versus best score on a household-level SES index was strongest for cleft lip with or without palate, at 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.4); the odds ratios for this comparison were closer to 1 and less precise for the other defect groups. An index based on neighborhood-level SES was also not associated with increased risk of the studied defects. CONCLUSIONS: This detailed analysis of SES and selected birth defects did not suggest worse SES was associated with increased risk of the studied defects, with the possible exception of cleft lip with or without cleft palate.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of multiple measures of socioeconomic status (SES) with risks of orofacial clefts and conotruncal heart defects. DESIGN: Data were from a recent population-based case-control study conducted in California that included 608 patients with orofacial clefts, 277 patients with conotruncal heart defects, and 617 nonmalformed controls. RESULTS: The odds ratio for the worst versus best score on a household-level SES index was strongest for cleft lip with or without palate, at 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.4); the odds ratios for this comparison were closer to 1 and less precise for the other defect groups. An index based on neighborhood-level SES was also not associated with increased risk of the studied defects. CONCLUSIONS: This detailed analysis of SES and selected birth defects did not suggest worse SES was associated with increased risk of the studied defects, with the possible exception of cleft lip with or without cleft palate.
Authors: Mark A Canfield; Margaret A Honein; Nataliya Yuskiv; Jian Xing; Cara T Mai; Julianne S Collins; Owen Devine; Joann Petrini; Tunu A Ramadhani; Charlotte A Hobbs; Russell S Kirby Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2006-11
Authors: Julia Blanco Muñoz; Marina Lacasaña; Victor Hugo Borja Aburto; Luisa Elvira Torres Sánchez; Ana María García García; Lizbeth López Carrillo Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Philip J Lupo; Heather E Danysh; Elaine Symanski; Peter H Langlois; Yi Cai; Michael D Swartz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: James E Kucik; Wendy N Nembhard; Pamela Donohue; Owen Devine; Ying Wang; Cynthia S Minkovitz; Thomas Burke Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Christina Dardani; Laurence J Howe; Nandita Mukhopadhyay; Evie Stergiakouli; Yvonne Wren; Kerry Humphries; Amy Davies; Karen Ho; Seth M Weinberg; Mary L Marazita; Elisabeth Mangold; Kerstin U Ludwig; Caroline L Relton; George Davey Smith; Sarah J Lewis; Jonathan Sandy; Neil M Davies; Gemma C Sharp Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 7.196