Literature DB >> 21387948

Sensitivity of birth certificate reports of birth defects in Atlanta, 1995-2005: effects of maternal, infant, and hospital characteristics.

Sheree L Boulet1, Mikyong Shin, Russell S Kirby, David Goodman, Adolfo Correa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We assessed variations in the sensitivity of birth defect diagnoses derived from birth certificate data by maternal, infant, and hospital characteristics.
METHODS: We compared birth certificate data for 1995-2005 births in Atlanta with data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program (MACDP). We calculated the sensitivity of birth certificates for reporting defects often discernable at birth (e.g., anencephaly, spina bifida, cleft lip, clubfoot, Down syndrome, and rectal atresia or stenosis). We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations with sociodemographic and hospital factors.
RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of birth certificates was 23% and ranged from 7% for rectal atresia/stenosis to 69% for anencephaly. Non-Hispanic black maternal race/ethnicity, less than a high school education, and preterm birth were independently associated with a lower probability of a birth defect diagnosis being reported on a birth certificate. Sensitivity also was lower for hospitals with > 1,000 births per year.
CONCLUSIONS: The underreporting of birth defects on birth certificates is influenced by sociodemographic and hospital characteristics. Interpretation of birth defects prevalence estimates derived from birth certificate reports should take these issues into account.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21387948      PMCID: PMC3056031          DOI: 10.1177/003335491112600209

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Rep        ISSN: 0033-3549            Impact factor:   2.792


  18 in total

1.  Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies.

Authors:  L M Snell; B B Little; K A Knoll; W L Johnston; C R Rosenfeld; N F Gant
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Do differences in accuracy of vital records and hospital discharge data between physician and nurse-midwife attended births matter?

Authors:  Russell S Kirby
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2008-05-29

3.  The 1989 revisions of the US Standard Certificates of Live Birth and Death and the US Standard Report of Fetal Death.

Authors:  M A Freedman; G A Gay; J E Brockert; P W Potrzebowski; C J Rothwell
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Evaluation of the hospital discharge diagnoses index and the birth certificate as sources of information on birth defects.

Authors:  A C Hexter; J A Harris; P Roeper; L A Croen; P Krueger; D Gant
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1990 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

5.  Prenatal care utilization: its measurement and relationship to pregnancy outcome.

Authors:  G R Alexander; D A Cornely
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1987 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Reporting of congenital malformations on birth certificates.

Authors:  M Mackeprang; S Hay
Journal:  Health Serv Rep       Date:  1972-11

7.  Birth complication reporting: the effect of birth certificate design.

Authors:  F Frost; P Starzyk; S George; J F McLaughlin
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records.

Authors:  J M Piper; E F Mitchel; M Snowden; C Hall; M Adams; P Taylor
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-04-01       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Bias in congenital malformations information from the birth certificate.

Authors:  A C Hexter; J A Harris
Journal:  Teratology       Date:  1991-08

10.  Spina bifida and anencephaly before and after folic acid mandate--United States, 1995-1996 and 1999-2000.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2004-05-07       Impact factor: 17.586

View more
  21 in total

1.  Racial/ethnic differences in survival of United States children with birth defects: a population-based study.

Authors:  Ying Wang; Gang Liu; Mark A Canfield; Cara T Mai; Suzanne M Gilboa; Robert E Meyer; Marlene Anderka; Glenn E Copeland; James E Kucik; Wendy N Nembhard; Russell S Kirby
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 4.406

2.  Abdominal Wall Defects among Mexican American Infants: The Effect of Maternal Nativity.

Authors:  Shayna D Hibbs; Amanda Bennett; Yessenia Castro; Kristin M Rankin; James W Jr Collins
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 1.847

3.  A quality assessment of reporting sources for microcephaly in Utah, 2003 to 2013.

Authors:  Amy Steele; Jane Johnson; Amy Nance; Robert Satterfield; C J Alverson; Cara Mai
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2016-11

4.  Parental Age and Risk of Infant Leukaemia: A Pooled Analysis.

Authors:  Erin L Marcotte; Todd E Druley; Kimberly J Johnson; Michaela Richardson; Julie von Behren; Beth A Mueller; Susan Carozza; Colleen McLaughlin; Eric J Chow; Peggy Reynolds; Logan G Spector
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 3.980

5.  The association between natural gas well activity and specific congenital anomalies in Oklahoma, 1997-2009.

Authors:  Amanda E Janitz; Hanh Dung Dao; Janis E Campbell; Julie A Stoner; Jennifer D Peck
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2018-12-12       Impact factor: 9.621

6.  The role of maternal age in twin pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  Amelia S McLennan; Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman; Cande V Ananth; Jason D Wright; Zainab Siddiq; Mary E D'Alton; Alexander M Friedman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Prenatal exposure to nitrate in drinking water and the risk of congenital anomalies.

Authors:  Julie Blaisdell; Mary E Turyk; Kirsten S Almberg; Rachael M Jones; Leslie T Stayner
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 6.498

8.  Assessment of congenital anomalies in infants born to pregnant women enrolled in clinical trials.

Authors:  Sonja A Rasmussen; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Omar A Abdul-Rahman; Leyla Sahin; Carey R Petrie; Kim M Keppler-Noreuil; Sharon E Frey; Robin M Mason; Mirjana Nesin; John C Carey
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Maternal residential exposure to agricultural pesticides and birth defects in a 2003 to 2005 North Carolina birth cohort.

Authors:  Kristen M Rappazzo; Joshua L Warren; Robert E Meyer; Amy H Herring; Alison P Sanders; Naomi C Brownstein; Thomas J Luben
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2016-03-11

10.  Validation of birth outcomes from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS): population-based analysis from the Massachusetts Outcome Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology (MOSART).

Authors:  Judy E Stern; Daksha Gopal; Rebecca F Liberman; Marlene Anderka; Milton Kotelchuck; Barbara Luke
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 7.329

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.