| Literature DB >> 25909955 |
Xiaohong Li1,2, Li Dai3, Yanping Wang4, Lin Yi5, Changfei Deng6, Kui Deng7, Guangxuan Zhou8, Qi Li9, Zheng Liu10, Ying Deng11,12, Jun Zhu13, Xiaosong Li14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about secular trends and seasonal variation in the birth prevalence of omphalocele in China. This study aimed to explore the long-term trends and seasonality of this birth defect, to provide insight into the etiology and prevention of omphalocele.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25909955 PMCID: PMC4456719 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0530-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Geographic, urban- and rural-specific birth prevalence of omphalocele (per 10,000 births) in China, 1996–2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1996 | 31 | 1.44(1.42-1.47) | 25 | 1.21(1.19-1.25) | 36 | 1.21(1.20-1.24) | 20 | 1.59(1.56-1.65) | 56 | 1.33(1.32-1.34) |
| 1997 | 30 | 1.50(1.48-1.53) | 16 | 0.73(0.71-0.77) | 32 | 1.08(1.07-1.11) | 14 | 1.14(1.10-1.20) | 46 | 1.10(1.09-1.12) |
| 1998 | 42 | 2.03(2.01-2.06) | 29 | 1.30(1.29-1.34) | 42 | 1.39(1.38-1.41) | 29 | 2.28(2.25-2.34) | 71 | 1.65(1.64-1.67) |
| 1999 | 42 | 1.90(1.88-1.93) | 41 | 1.82(1.80-1.85) | 53 | 1.69(1.68-1.71) | 30 | 2.25(2.22-2.31) | 83 | 1.86(1.85-1.87) |
| 2000 | 44 | 1.77(1.75-1.80) | 39 | 1.55(1.53-1.57) | 55 | 1.56(1.54-1.58) | 28 | 1.90(1.87-1.95) | 83 | 1.66(1.65-1.67) |
| 2001 | 37 | 1.54(1.53-1.57) | 30 | 1.24(1.22-1.27) | 45 | 1.37(1.36-1.39) | 22 | 1.42(1.40-1.47) | 67 | 1.39(1.38-1.40) |
| 2002 | 34 | 1.31(1.30-1.34) | 41 | 1.54(1.52-1.56) | 44 | 1.22(1.21-1.24) | 31 | 1.87(1.84-1.91) | 75 | 1.43(1.42-1.44) |
| 2003 | 36 | 1.46(1.45-1.49) | 30 | 1.55(1.53-1.59) | 37 | 1.27(1.26-1.30) | 29 | 1.93(1.91-1.98) | 66 | 1.50(1.49-1.52) |
| 2004 | 54 | 1.71(1.70-1.73) | 47 | 1.58(1.56-1.60) | 68 | 1.61(1.61-1.63) | 33 | 1.70(1.68-1.74) | 101 | 1.64(1.64-1.65) |
| 2005 | 55 | 1.71(1.69-1.73) | 33 | 1.15(1.14-1.18) | 47 | 1.15(1.14-1.17) | 41 | 2.05(2.03-2.09) | 88 | 1.45(1.44-1.46) |
| 2006 | 48 | 1.39(1.38-1.41) | 49 | 1.55(1.53-1.57) | 61 | 1.40(1.39-1.41) | 36 | 1.59(1.57-1.62) | 97 | 1.46(1.46-1.47) |
| 2007 | 69 | 1.63(1.62-1.64) | 51 | 1.28(1.27-1.30) | 70 | 1.26(1.25-1.27) | 50 | 1.89(1.88-1.92) | 120 | 1.46(1.46-1.47) |
| 2008 | 81 | 1.83(1.82-1.84) | 52 | 1.30(1.29-1.31) | 72 | 1.30(1.29-1.31) | 61 | 2.10(2.08-2.12) | 133 | 1.57(1.57-1.58) |
| 2009 | 93 | 2.00(2.00-2.02) | 52 | 1.23(1.22-1.24) | 82 | 1.46(1.46-1.48) | 63 | 1.92(1.91-1.94) | 145 | 1.63(1.63-1.64) |
| 2010 | 59 | 1.58(1.57-1.60) | 32 | 0.96(0.94-0.98) | 56 | 1.22(1.21-1.24) | 35 | 1.40(1.38-1.43) | 91 | 1.28(1.28-1.29) |
Abbreviation: CI Confidence interval.
Comparison of the fitted results of the three models in each region/area of China
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National wide | 0 | Model A1 | Region urban–rural age year | −2080.89 | ||
| 1 | Model A2 | Region urban–rural age year c1 s1 | −2078.47 | 4.85a | 0.088 | |
| 2 | Model A3 | Urban–rural age year c1 s1 c2 s2 | −2077.84 | 1.26b | 0.533 | |
| South | 0 | Model B1 | Urban–rural age year | −1075.90 | ||
| 1 | Model B2 | Urban–rural age year c1 s1 | −1075.26 | 1.27c | 0.530 | |
| 2 | Model B3 | Urban–rural age year c1 s1 c2 s2 | −1074.86 | 0.81d | 0.667 | |
| North | 0 | Model C1 | Urban–rural age year | −996.45 | ||
| 1 | Model C2 | Urban–rural age year c1 s1 | −994.30 | 4.31e | 0.116 | |
| 2 | Model C3 | Urban–rural age year c1 s1 c2 s2 | −993.52 | 1.55f | 0.461 | |
| Urban | 0 | Model D1 | Region age year | −1113.58 | ||
| 1 | Model D2 | Region age year c1 s1 | −1113.45 | 0.27g | 0.874 | |
| 2 | Model D3 | Region age year c1 s1 c2 s2 | −1112.17 | 2.56h | 0.278 | |
| Rural | 0 | Model E1 | Region age year | −964.87 | ||
| 1 | Model E2 | Region age year c1 s1 | −960.71 | 8.31i | 0.016 | |
| 2 | Model E3 | Region age year c1 s1 c2 s2 | −959.90 | 1.62j | 0.445 |
aCompared model A2 with model A1; bCompared model A3 with model A2; cCompared model B2 with model B1; dCompared model B3 with model B2; eCompared model C2 with model C1; fCompared model C3 with model C2; gCompared model D2 with model D1; hCompared model D3 with model D2; iCompared model E2 with model E1; jCompared model E3 with model E2.
Figure 1Seasonality of omphalocele in rural China.
Figure 2Long-term trends of omphalocele prevalence in northern and southern regions (A) and urban and rural areas of China (B).
Parameter estimation for secular trends and seasonality of omphalocele in each region/residential area of China
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ModelA1 | Year | −0.005 | 0.007 | −0.018 | 0.008 | 0.630 | 0.427 |
| ModelB1 | Year | −0.001 | 0.009 | −0.018 | 0.017 | 0.010 | 0.935 |
| ModelC1 | Year | −0.010 | 0.010 | −0.030 | 0.009 | 1.100 | 0.295 |
| ModelD1 | Year | −0.007 | 0.008 | −0.024 | 0.009 | 0.730 | 0.393 |
| ModelE2 | Year | −0.004 | 0.011 | −0.025 | 0.016 | 0.160 | 0.690 |
| c1 | −0.161 | 0.063 | −0.283 | −0.038 | 6.620 | 0.010 | |
| s1 | −0.078 | 0.062 | −0.200 | 0.045 | 1.550 | 0.214 | |
| ψ | 0.179 | 0.063 | 0.056 | 0.302 | 8.121 | 0.004 | |
| θ | 3.593 | 0.154 | 3.291 | 3.895 | 545.316 | <0.001 | |