Literature DB >> 25792608

Adjusting for bias due to incomplete case ascertainment in case-control studies of birth defects.

Penelope P Howards, Candice Y Johnson, Margaret A Honein, W Dana Flanders.   

Abstract

Case-control studies of birth defects might be subject to selection bias when there is incomplete ascertainment of cases among pregnancies that are terminated after a prenatal diagnosis of the defect. We propose a simple method to estimate inverse probability of selection weights (IPSWs) for cases ascertained from both pregnancies that end in termination and those that do not end in termination using data directly available from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study and other published information. The IPSWs can then be used to adjust for selection bias analytically. We can also allow for uncertainty in the selection probabilities through probabilistic bias analysis. We provide an illustrative example using data from National Birth Defects Prevention Study (1997-2009) to examine the association between prepregnancy obesity (body mass index, measured as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, of ≥30 vs. <30) and spina bifida. The unadjusted odds ratio for the association between prepregnancy obesity and spina bifida was 1.48 (95% confidence interval: 1.26, 1.73), and the simple selection bias-adjusted odds ratio was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.04, 1.53). The probabilistic bias analysis resulted in a median adjusted odds ratio of 1.22 (95% simulation interval: 0.97, 1.47). The proposed method provides a quantitative estimate of the IPSWs and the bias introduced by incomplete ascertainment of cases among terminated pregnancies conditional on a set of assumptions. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 2015. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias correction; birth defects; case-control studies; selection bias; spina bifida

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25792608      PMCID: PMC4501270          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  34 in total

1.  Prepregnancy obesity as a risk factor for structural birth defects.

Authors:  D Kim Waller; Gary M Shaw; Sonja A Rasmussen; Charlotte A Hobbs; Mark A Canfield; Anna-Maria Siega-Riz; M Shayne Gallaway; Adolfo Correa
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2007-08

2.  Updated National Birth Prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006.

Authors:  Samantha E Parker; Cara T Mai; Mark A Canfield; Russel Rickard; Ying Wang; Robert E Meyer; Patrick Anderson; Craig A Mason; Julianne S Collins; Russell S Kirby; Adolfo Correa
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2010-09-28

3.  Does obesity shorten life? The importance of well-defined interventions to answer causal questions.

Authors:  M A Hernán; S L Taubman
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.095

4.  Comment on: Association of maternal pre-pregnancy weight with birth defects: Evidence from a case-control study in Western Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49: 11-15.

Authors:  Michael Peek; Ralph Nanan
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.100

5.  Maternal alcohol consumption, alcohol metabolism genes, and the risk of oral clefts: a population-based case-control study in Norway, 1996-2001.

Authors:  Abee L Boyles; Lisa A DeRoo; Rolv T Lie; Jack A Taylor; Astanand Jugessur; Jeffrey C Murray; Allen J Wilcox
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Effect of maternal obesity on the ultrasound detection of anomalous fetuses.

Authors:  Jodi S Dashe; Donald D McIntire; Diane M Twickler
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Prenatal diagnosis of orofacial clefts, National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1998-2004.

Authors:  Candice Y Johnson; Margaret A Honein; Charlotte A Hobbs; Sonja A Rasmussen
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Preconception and interconception health status of women who recently gave birth to a live-born infant--Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), United States, 26 reporting areas, 2004.

Authors:  Denise D'Angelo; Letitia Williams; Brian Morrow; Shanna Cox; Norma Harris; Leslie Harrison; Samuel F Posner; Jessie Richardson Hood; Lauren Zapata
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2007-12-14

Review 9.  Maternal overweight and obesity and the risk of congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Katherine J Stothard; Peter W G Tennant; Ruth Bell; Judith Rankin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Prenatal screening and diagnosis of neural tube defects.

Authors:  Martin Cameron; Paul Moran
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.050

View more
  7 in total

1.  Constructing Causal Diagrams for Common Perinatal Outcomes: Benefits, Limitations and Motivating Examples with Maternal Antidepressant Use in Pregnancy.

Authors:  Gretchen Bandoli; Kristin Palmsten; Katrina F Flores; Christina D Chambers
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 3.980

2.  Survival of infants with spina bifida and the role of maternal prepregnancy body mass index.

Authors:  Nelson D Pace; Anna Maria Siega-Riz; Andrew F Olshan; Nancy C Chescheir; Stephen R Cole; Tania A Desrosiers; Sarah C Tinker; Adrienne T Hoyt; Mark A Canfield; Suzan L Carmichael; Robert E Meyer
Journal:  Birth Defects Res       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  Prenatal exposure to wildfire-related air pollution and birth defects in Brazil.

Authors:  Weeberb J Requia; Erick Kill; Stefania Papatheodorou; Petros Koutrakis; Joel D Schwartz
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 6.371

4.  Prepregnancy body mass index and spina bifida: Potential contributions of bias.

Authors:  Candice Y Johnson; Margaret A Honein; Sonja A Rasmussen; Penelope P Howards; Matthew J Strickland; W Dana Flanders
Journal:  Birth Defects Res       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 2.661

5.  Quantification of selection bias in studies of risk factors for birth defects among livebirths.

Authors:  Dominique Heinke; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Paige L Williams; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Marlene Anderka; Sarah C Fisher; Tania A Desrosiers; Gary M Shaw; Paul A Romitti; Mark A Canfield; Mahsa M Yazdy
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 3.103

6.  The Prevalence and Distribution of Spina Bifida in a Single Major Referral Center in Malaysia.

Authors:  Adibah Sahmat; Renuka Gunasekaran; Siti W Mohd-Zin; Lohis Balachandran; Meow-Keong Thong; Julia P Engkasan; Dharmendra Ganesan; Zaliha Omar; Abu Bakar Azizi; Azlina Ahmad-Annuar; Noraishah M Abdul-Aziz
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 3.418

7.  Educational note: addressing special cases of bias that frequently occur in perinatal epidemiology.

Authors:  Andreas M Neophytou; Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou; Dana E Goin; Kristin C Darwin; Joan A Casey
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 7.196

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.