ArticleBirth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology2016
Population-based microcephaly surveillance in the United States, 2009 to 2013: An analysis of potential sources of variation.
Article in Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Maternal age 30-34 years and adverse perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between young maternal age and fetal abnormalities.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Congenital anomalies and maternal age: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Pooled it
- Architects of the Developing Brain: Cytoskeleton-Organizing Molecules in Neurodevelopmental Disorders.Cells · 2026Review
- Genetic architecture and prognostic significance of suspected fetal microcephaly: evidence from prenatal exome sequencing in a large prospective cohort.Human genomics · 2026Article
- Leveraging Health Insurance Claims Data to Complement the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surveillance System for Birth Defects.Birth defects research · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy and Birth Defects: Results From the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry, United States 2021-2022.Birth defects research · 2025Article
- Microcephaly in Infants: A Retrospective Cohort Study from TurkeyJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2024Article
- Prenatal exposure to antiseizure medications and fetal growth: a population-based cohort study from the Nordic countries.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Scientific impact of the National Birth Defects Prevention Network multistate collaborative publications.Birth defects research · 2024Review
- Prevalence of congenital anomalies according to maternal race and ethnicity, Texas, 1999-2018.Birth defects research · 2024Article
- The impact of TP53 activation and apoptosis in primary hereditary microcephaly.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Transcription factors in microcephaly.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- ANKLE2-related microcephaly: A variable microcephaly syndrome resembling Zika infection.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2022Article
- Identifying possible inaccuracy in reported birth head circumference measurements among infants in the US Zika Pregnancy and Infant Registry.Birth defects research · 2022Article
- Causes of Phenotypic Variability and Disabilities after Prenatal Viral Infections.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2021Article
- Autosomal Recessive Primary Microcephaly: Not Just a Small Brain.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Review
- Causes of Microcephaly in the Zika Era in Argentina: A Retrospective Study.Global pediatric health · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCongenital microcephaly has been linked to maternal Zika virus infection. However, ascertaining infants diagnosed with microcephaly can be challenging.
methodsThirty birth defects surveillance programs provided data on infants diagnosed with microcephaly born 2009 to 2013. The pooled prevalence of microcephaly per 10,000 live births was estimated overall and by maternal/infant characteristics. Variation in prevalence was examined across case finding methods. Nine programs provided data on head circumference and conditions potentially contributing to microcephaly.
resultsThe pooled prevalence of microcephaly was 8.7 per 10,000 live births. Median prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was similar among programs using active (6.7) and passive (6.6) methods; the interdecile range of prevalence estimates was wider among programs using passive methods for all race/ethnicity categories except Hispanic. Prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was lowest among non-Hispanic Whites (6.5) and highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics (11.2 and 11.9, respectively); estimates followed a U-shaped distribution by maternal age with the highest prevalence among mothers <20 years (11.5) and ≥40 years (13.2). For gestational age and birth weight, the highest prevalence was among infants <32 weeks gestation and infants <1500 gm. Case definitions varied; 41.8% of cases had an HC ≥ the 10
conclusionDifferences in methods, population distribution of maternal/infant characteristics, and case definitions for microcephaly can contribute to the wide range of observed prevalence estimates across individual birth defects surveillance programs. Addressing these factors in the setting of Zika virus infection can improve the quality of prevalence estimates. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:972-982, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.