BACKGROUND: Surveillance of multiple congenital anomalies is considered to be more sensitive for the detection of new teratogens than surveillance of all or isolated congenital anomalies. Current literature proposes the manual review of all cases for classification into isolated or multiple congenital anomalies. METHODS: Multiple anomalies were defined as two or more major congenital anomalies, excluding sequences and syndromes. A computer algorithm for classification of major congenital anomaly cases in the EUROCAT database according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD)v10 codes was programmed, further developed, and implemented for 1 year's data (2004) from 25 registries. The group of cases classified with potential multiple congenital anomalies were manually reviewed by three geneticists to reach a final agreement of classification as "multiple congenital anomaly" cases. RESULTS: A total of 17,733 cases with major congenital anomalies were reported giving an overall prevalence of major congenital anomalies at 2.17%. The computer algorithm classified 10.5% of all cases as "potentially multiple congenital anomalies". After manual review of these cases, 7% were agreed to have true multiple congenital anomalies. Furthermore, the algorithm classified 15% of all cases as having chromosomal anomalies, 2% as monogenic syndromes, and 76% as isolated congenital anomalies. The proportion of multiple anomalies varies by congenital anomaly subgroup with up to 35% of cases with bilateral renal agenesis. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the EUROCAT computer algorithm is a feasible, efficient, and transparent way to improve classification of congenital anomalies for surveillance and research.
BACKGROUND: Surveillance of multiple congenital anomalies is considered to be more sensitive for the detection of new teratogens than surveillance of all or isolated congenital anomalies. Current literature proposes the manual review of all cases for classification into isolated or multiple congenital anomalies. METHODS:Multiple anomalies were defined as two or more major congenital anomalies, excluding sequences and syndromes. A computer algorithm for classification of major congenital anomaly cases in the EUROCAT database according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD)v10 codes was programmed, further developed, and implemented for 1 year's data (2004) from 25 registries. The group of cases classified with potential multiple congenital anomalies were manually reviewed by three geneticists to reach a final agreement of classification as "multiple congenital anomaly" cases. RESULTS: A total of 17,733 cases with major congenital anomalies were reported giving an overall prevalence of major congenital anomalies at 2.17%. The computer algorithm classified 10.5% of all cases as "potentially multiple congenital anomalies". After manual review of these cases, 7% were agreed to have true multiple congenital anomalies. Furthermore, the algorithm classified 15% of all cases as having chromosomal anomalies, 2% as monogenic syndromes, and 76% as isolated congenital anomalies. The proportion of multiple anomalies varies by congenital anomaly subgroup with up to 35% of cases with bilateral renal agenesis. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the EUROCAT computer algorithm is a feasible, efficient, and transparent way to improve classification of congenital anomalies for surveillance and research.
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: Renata H Benjamin; Xiao Yu; Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez; Han Chen; Laura E Mitchell; Peter H Langlois; Mark A Canfield; Michael D Swartz; Angela E Scheuerle; Daryl A Scott; Hope Northrup; Christian P Schaaf; Joseph W Ray; Scott D McLean; Philip J Lupo; A J Agopian Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Peter H Langlois; Lisa Marengo; Philip J Lupo; Margaret Drummond-Borg; A J Agopian; Wendy N Nembhard; Mark A Canfield Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 2.661
Authors: F D Tucker; J K Morris; A Neville; E Garne; A Kinsner-Ovaskainen; M Lanzoni; M A Loane; S Martin; C Nicholl; J Rankin; A K Rissmann Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2018-05-07
Authors: Meredith M Howley; Eva Williford; A J Agopian; Angela E Lin; Lorenzo D Botto; Christopher M Cunniff; Paul A Romitti; Eirini Nestoridi; Marilyn L Browne Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 2.661
Authors: Helen Dolk; Hao Wang; Maria Loane; Joan Morris; Ester Garne; Marie-Claude Addor; Larraitz Arriola; Marian Bakker; Ingeborg Barisic; Berenice Doray; Miriam Gatt; Karin Kallen; Babak Khoshnood; Kari Klungsoyr; Anna-Maria Lahesmaa-Korpinen; Anna Latos-Bielenska; Jan P Mejnartowicz; Vera Nelen; Amanda Neville; Mary O'Mahony; Anna Pierini; Anke Rißmann; David Tucker; Diana Wellesley; Awi Wiesel; Lolkje T W de Jong-van den Berg Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jorieke E H Bergman; Maria Loane; Martine Vrijheid; Anna Pierini; Rien J M Nijman; Marie-Claude Addor; Ingeborg Barisic; Judit Béres; Paula Braz; Judith Budd; Virginia Delaney; Miriam Gatt; Babak Khoshnood; Kari Klungsøyr; Carmen Martos; Carmel Mullaney; Vera Nelen; Amanda J Neville; Mary O'Mahony; Annette Queisser-Luft; Hanitra Randrianaivo; Anke Rissmann; Catherine Rounding; David Tucker; Diana Wellesley; Natalya Zymak-Zakutnia; Marian K Bakker; Hermien E K de Walle Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Joan K Morris; Ester Garne; Maria Loane; Ingeborg Barisic; James Densem; Anna Latos-Bieleńska; Amanda Neville; Anna Pierini; Judith Rankin; Anke Rissmann; Hermien de Walle; Joachim Tan; Joanne Emma Given; Hugh Claridge Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 2.692