Dominique Heinke1,2, Janet W Rich-Edwards2,3,4, Paige L Williams2, Sonia Hernandez-Diaz2, Marlene Anderka1, Sarah C Fisher5, Tania A Desrosiers6, Gary M Shaw7, Paul A Romitti8, Mark A Canfield9, Mahsa M Yazdy1. 1. Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Congenital Malformations Registry, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 6. University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 8. College of Public Health, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 9. Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk factors for birth defects are frequently investigated using data limited to liveborn infants. By conditioning on survival, results of such studies may be distorted by selection bias, also described as "livebirth bias." However, the implications of livebirth bias on risk estimation remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantify livebirth bias and to investigate the conditions under which it arose. METHODS: We used data on 3994 birth defects cases and 11 829 controls enrolled in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study to compare odds ratio (OR) estimates of the relationship between three established risk factors (antiepileptic drug use, smoking, and multifetal pregnancy) and four birth defects (anencephaly, spina bifida, omphalocele, and cleft palate) when restricted to livebirths as compared to among livebirths, stillbirths, and elective terminations. Exposures and birth defects represented varying strengths of association with livebirth; all controls were liveborn. We performed a quantitative bias analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of our results to excluding terminated and stillborn controls. RESULTS: Cases ranged from 33% liveborn (anencephaly) to 99% (cleft palate). Smoking and multifetal pregnancy were associated with livebirth among anencephaly (crude OR [cOR] 0.61 and cOR 3.15, respectively) and omphalocele cases (cOR 2.22 and cOR 5.22, respectively). For analyses of the association between exposures and birth defects, restricting to livebirths produced negligible differences in estimates except for anencephaly and multifetal pregnancy, which was twofold higher among livebirths (adjusted OR [aOR] 4.93) as among all pregnancy outcomes (aOR 2.44). Within tested scenarios, bias analyses suggested that results were not sensitive to the restriction to liveborn controls. CONCLUSIONS: Selection bias was generally limited except for high mortality defects in the context of exposures strongly associated with livebirth. Findings indicate that substantial livebirth bias is unlikely to affect studies of risk factors for most birth defects.
BACKGROUND: Risk factors for birth defects are frequently investigated using data limited to liveborn infants. By conditioning on survival, results of such studies may be distorted by selection bias, also described as "livebirth bias." However, the implications of livebirth bias on risk estimation remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantify livebirth bias and to investigate the conditions under which it arose. METHODS: We used data on 3994 birth defects cases and 11 829 controls enrolled in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study to compare odds ratio (OR) estimates of the relationship between three established risk factors (antiepileptic drug use, smoking, and multifetal pregnancy) and four birth defects (anencephaly, spina bifida, omphalocele, and cleft palate) when restricted to livebirths as compared to among livebirths, stillbirths, and elective terminations. Exposures and birth defects represented varying strengths of association with livebirth; all controls were liveborn. We performed a quantitative bias analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of our results to excluding terminated and stillborn controls. RESULTS: Cases ranged from 33% liveborn (anencephaly) to 99% (cleft palate). Smoking and multifetal pregnancy were associated with livebirth among anencephaly (crude OR [cOR] 0.61 and cOR 3.15, respectively) and omphalocele cases (cOR 2.22 and cOR 5.22, respectively). For analyses of the association between exposures and birth defects, restricting to livebirths produced negligible differences in estimates except for anencephaly and multifetal pregnancy, which was twofold higher among livebirths (adjusted OR [aOR] 4.93) as among all pregnancy outcomes (aOR 2.44). Within tested scenarios, bias analyses suggested that results were not sensitive to the restriction to liveborn controls. CONCLUSIONS: Selection bias was generally limited except for high mortality defects in the context of exposures strongly associated with livebirth. Findings indicate that substantial livebirth bias is unlikely to affect studies of risk factors for most birth defects.
Authors: Martha M Werler; Katherine A Ahrens; Jaclyn L F Bosco; Allen A Mitchell; Marlene T Anderka; Suzanne M Gilboa; Lewis B Holmes Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Kristin Palmsten; Krista F Huybrechts; Mary K Kowal; Helen Mogun; Sonia Hernández-Díaz Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Krista F Huybrechts; Kristin Palmsten; Jerry Avorn; Lee S Cohen; Lewis B Holmes; Jessica M Franklin; Helen Mogun; Raisa Levin; Mary Kowal; Soko Setoguchi; Sonia Hernández-Díaz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elis Haan; Hannah M Sallis; Eivind Ystrom; Pål Rasmus Njølstad; Ole A Andreassen; Ted Reichborn-Kjennerud; Marcus R Munafò; Alexandra Havdahl; Luisa Zuccolo Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 3.928
Authors: Alexander J F Davidson; Alison L Park; Howard Berger; Kazuyoshi Aoyama; Ziv Harel; Eyal Cohen; Jocelynn L Cook; Joel G Ray Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-12-01
Authors: Jack Wilkinson; Jonathan Y Huang; Antonia Marsden; Michael O Harhay; Andy Vail; Stephen A Roberts Journal: Trials Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 2.279