ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2015
Adjusting for bias due to incomplete case ascertainment in case-control studies of birth defects.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case-Control Study of Congenital Anomalies: Study Methods and Nonresponse Bias Assessment.Birth defects research · 2025Article
- Bias analyses to investigate the impact of differential participation: Application to a birth defects case-control study.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2024Article
- Prenatal exposure to wildfire-related air pollution and birth defects in Brazil.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2022Article
- Prepregnancy body mass index and spina bifida: Potential contributions of bias.Birth defects research · 2021Article
- Educational note: addressing special cases of bias that frequently occur in perinatal epidemiology.International journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Quantification of selection bias in studies of risk factors for birth defects among livebirths.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2020Article
- Survival of infants with spina bifida and the role of maternal prepregnancy body mass index.Birth defects research · 2019Article
- The Prevalence and Distribution of Spina Bifida in a Single Major Referral Center in Malaysia.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2017Article
- Paternal and joint parental occupational pesticide exposure and spina bifida in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997 to 2002.Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology · 2016Article
- Constructing Causal Diagrams for Common Perinatal Outcomes: Benefits, Limitations and Motivating Examples with Maternal Antidepressant Use in Pregnancy.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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.
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.