ArticleHuman heredity2008
Consanguinity and birth defects in the jerusalem perinatal study cohort.
Article in Human heredity, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mortality among individuals with congenital malformations who reach adulthood: long-term follow-up of the Jerusalem Perinatal Study cohort.International journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Understanding utilization of outpatient clinics for children with special health care needs in southern Israel.Maternal and child health journal · 2014Article
- Prevalence of birth defects and risk-factor analysis from a population-based survey in Inner Mongolia, China.BMC pediatrics · 2012Article
- Consanguinity, prematurity, birth weight and pregnancy loss: a prospective cohort study at four primary health center areas of Karnataka, India.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2012Article
- Relationship between consanguinity and depression in a south Indian population.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile parental consanguinity is known to increase the risk of birth defects in offspring, it is hard to quantify this risk in populations where consanguinity is prevalent.
methodsTo support ongoing studies of cancer and of psychiatric disease, we studied relationships of consanguinity to 1,053 major birth defects in 29,815 offspring, born in 1964-1976. To adjust for confounding variables (geographic origin, social class and hospital), we constructed logistic regression models, using GEE to take into account correlations between sibs. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence limits were estimated in comparison to a reference group of offspring with grandfathers born in different countries.
resultsWith 10.1% of offspring having consanguineous parents, the adjusted OR for major birth defect was 1.41 (1.12-1.74). Offspring of marriages between uncles-nieces, first cousins and more distant relatives showed adjusted ORs of 2.36 (0.98-5.68), 1.59 (1.22-2.07) and 1.20 (0.89-1.59) respectively. For descendents of grandfathers born in the same country, but not known to be related, the OR was 1.05 (0.91-1.21); these showed increased risk associated with ancestries in Western Asia (1.27, 1.04-1.55, p < 0.02) or Europe (1.13, 0.79-1.80).
conclusionsA strong association of consanguinity with poverty and low education points to the need to avoid exposure to environmental hazards in these families.
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.