Lewis B Holmes1, Marie-Noel Westgate. 1. Active Malformations Surveillance Program, Department of Newborn Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA. holmes.lewis@mgh.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The surveillance of newborn infants exposed to potential teratogens often relies on the findings in routine physicians' examinations to identify malformations. Exposed newborn infants can have a wide variety of physical features, including malformations, birth marks, positional deformities, and minor anomalies. The routine physician's findings are not standardized. Some physicians record a wide variety of physical features and others do not. The purpose of this study was to develop criteria and definitions for identifying malformations and for identifying the more common and less severe physical features that would be excluded as not being malformations. METHODS: The physical features recorded by the examining pediatricians were obtained from a review of the medical records of a consecutive sample of 1000 liveborn and stillborn infants and elective terminations for fetal anomalies. RESULTS: A malformation, defined as a structural abnormality with surgical, medical or cosmetic importance, was present in 18 (2.8%) of the infants; 222 other recorded features were identified and excluded: malformations attributed to dominant or recessive genes (4) or chromosome abnormalities (6), minor anomalies and normal variations (65), birth marks (110), positional deformities (6), prematurity-related features (5), physiologic findings (4) and findings identified by prenatal ultrasound (but not by the examining pediatrician) (20), functional abnormalities (1) and findings in newborn screening (1). CONCLUSIONS: Investigators should establish, in advance, the exclusion criteria to be used in programs, such as malformation surveillance programs or pregnancy registries, whose findings are based on a review of the routine examinations in medical records. It is essential that the same criteria be used in evaluating the drug-exposed and the unexposed comparison group.
BACKGROUND: The surveillance of newborn infants exposed to potential teratogens often relies on the findings in routine physicians' examinations to identify malformations. Exposed newborn infants can have a wide variety of physical features, including malformations, birth marks, positional deformities, and minor anomalies. The routine physician's findings are not standardized. Some physicians record a wide variety of physical features and others do not. The purpose of this study was to develop criteria and definitions for identifying malformations and for identifying the more common and less severe physical features that would be excluded as not being malformations. METHODS: The physical features recorded by the examining pediatricians were obtained from a review of the medical records of a consecutive sample of 1000 liveborn and stillborn infants and elective terminations for fetal anomalies. RESULTS: A malformation, defined as a structural abnormality with surgical, medical or cosmetic importance, was present in 18 (2.8%) of the infants; 222 other recorded features were identified and excluded: malformations attributed to dominant or recessive genes (4) or chromosome abnormalities (6), minor anomalies and normal variations (65), birth marks (110), positional deformities (6), prematurity-related features (5), physiologic findings (4) and findings identified by prenatal ultrasound (but not by the examining pediatrician) (20), functional abnormalities (1) and findings in newborn screening (1). CONCLUSIONS: Investigators should establish, in advance, the exclusion criteria to be used in programs, such as malformation surveillance programs or pregnancy registries, whose findings are based on a review of the routine examinations in medical records. It is essential that the same criteria be used in evaluating the drug-exposed and the unexposed comparison group.
Authors: Rachel Stadelmaier; Hanah Nasri; Curtis K Deutsch; Margaret Bauman; Anne Hunt; Christopher J Stodgell; Jane Adams; Lewis B Holmes Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Kelesitse Phiri; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Kate B Dugan; Paige L Williams; Judith A Dudley; Astride Jules; S Todd Callahan; George R Seage; William O Cooper Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.129
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
Authors: Loreen Straub; Krista F Huybrechts; Brian T Bateman; Helen Mogun; Kathryn J Gray; Lewis B Holmes; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lewis B Holmes; Hanah Z Nasri; Anne-Therese Hunt; Rebecca Zash; Roger L Shapiro Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2021-03-28 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Shahin Lockman; Sean S Brummel; Lauren Ziemba; Lynda Stranix-Chibanda; Katie McCarthy; Anne Coletti; Patrick Jean-Philippe; Ben Johnston; Chelsea Krotje; Lee Fairlie; Risa M Hoffman; Paul E Sax; Sikhulile Moyo; Nahida Chakhtoura; Jeffrey Sa Stringer; Gaerolwe Masheto; Violet Korutaro; Haseena Cassim; Blandina T Mmbaga; Esau João; Sherika Hanley; Lynette Purdue; Lewis B Holmes; Jeremiah D Momper; Roger L Shapiro; Navdeep K Thoofer; James F Rooney; Lisa M Frenkel; K Rivet Amico; Lameck Chinula; Judith Currier Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 79.321