ArticleAmerican journal of public health2006
Advances in medical technology and creation of disparities: the case of Down syndrome.
Article in American journal of public health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of congenital anomalies and prenatal diagnosis by birth institution (public vs. non-public): indicators of inequality in access to elective termination of pregnancy for fetal anomalies.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods.Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Article
- Sociodemographic Differences in Prenatal Diagnosis of Chromosomal Anomalies: A Population-Based Study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Birth prevalence of congenital anomalies in the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina, according to socioeconomic level.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Assessing sociodemographic differences (or lack thereof) in prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects: a population-based study.BMJ open · 2016Observational
- [Commentary: health and politics: a not so innocent relationship].Atencion primaria · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe assessed socioeconomic differences in probabilities of prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome and continuation of pregnancies after such diagnoses, along with the effects of these differences on disparities in live-birth prevalences of Down syndrome.
methodsUsing population-based data derived from 1433 cases of Down syndrome and 3731 control births, we assessed age-adjusted effects of maternal occupation and geographic origin on prenatal diagnoses, as well as overall and live-birth odds, of Down syndrome.
resultsMaternal occupation and geographic origin had significant effects on the probability of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and on continuation of pregnancy after such a diagnosis. Women in lower-status occupational categories had higher odds of delivering a live-born infant with Down syndrome. In comparison with women in the highest-status occupational category, the age-adjusted odds ratio for a Down syndrome live birth among women without an occupation was 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7, 3.3). By contrast, there were no disparities in age-adjusted overall likelihood of Down syndrome.
conclusionsSocioeconomic differences in use of prenatal testing have created disparities in the live-birth prevalence of Down syndrome. Overall Down syndrome risk does not vary according to socioeconomic status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.