ArticleBirth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology2016
A quality assessment of reporting sources for microcephaly in Utah, 2003 to 2013.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Population-based microcephaly surveillance in the United States, 2009 to 2013: An analysis of potential sources of variation.Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundObtaining accurate microcephaly prevalence is important given the recent association between microcephaly and Zika virus. Assessing the quality of data sources can guide surveillance programs as they focus their data collection efforts. The Utah Birth Defect Network (UBDN) has monitored microcephaly by data sources since 2003. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of reporting sources for microcephaly surveillance.
methodsAll reported cases of microcephaly among Utah mothers from 2003 to 2013 were clinically reviewed and confirmed. The UBDN database was linked to state vital records and hospital discharge data for analysis. Reporting sources were analyzed for positive predictive value and sensitivity.
resultsOf the 477 reported cases of microcephaly, 251 (52.6%) were confirmed as true cases. The UBDN identified 94 additional cases that were reported to the surveillance system as another birth defect, but were ultimately determined to be true microcephaly cases. The prevalence for microcephaly based on the UBDN medical record abstraction and clinical review was 8.2 per 10,000 live births. Data sources varied in the number and accuracy of reporting, but a case was more likely to be a true case if identified from multiple sources than from a single source.
conclusionWhile some reporting sources are more likely to identify possible and true microcephaly cases, maintaining a multiple source methodology allows for more complete case ascertainment. Surveillance programs should conduct periodic assessments of data sources to ensure their systems are capturing all possible birth defects cases. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:983-988, 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.