ArticleBMC medicine2017
Risk estimates of recurrent congenital anomalies in the UK: a population-based register study.
Article in BMC medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Birth prevalence and determinants of neural tube defects among newborns in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- The Utilisation of Genetic Counselling Services Amongst Prenatal Healthcare Providers in Gauteng, South Africa.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Birth prevalence and associated factors of congenital anomalies among neonates born at a public hospital in Awi Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: institutional based cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Determinants of externally visible birth defects among perinatal deaths at Adama Comprehensive Specialized Hospital: a case-control study.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Validation of case definition algorithms for the ascertainment of congenital anomalies.Birth defects research · 2023Article
- Effect of low dose aspirin application during pregnancy on fetal congenital anomalies.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- The Causes and Role of Antinatalism in Poland in the Context of Climate Change, Obstetric Care, and Mental Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Implementation of the BC Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (BCCASS).Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2022Article
- Prenatal Exome Sequencing in Recurrent Fetal Structural Anomalies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Diagnostic assessment of foetal brain malformations with intra-uterine MRI versus perinatal post-mortem MRI.Neuroradiology · 2019Article
- Congenital anomalies prevalence in Addis Ababa and the Amhara region, Ethiopia: a descriptive cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrence risks for familial congenital anomalies in successive pregnancies are known, but this information for major structural anomalies is lacking. We estimated the absolute and relative risks of recurrent congenital anomaly in the second pregnancy for women with a history of a congenital anomaly in the first pregnancy, for all major anomaly groups and subtypes.
methodsPopulation-based register data on 18,605 singleton pregnancies affected by major congenital anomaly occurring in 872,493 singleton stillbirths, live births and terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly were obtained from the Northern Congenital Abnormality Survey, North of England, UK, for 1985-2010. Absolute risks (ARs) and relative risks (RRs) for recurrent congenital anomaly (overall, from a similar group, from a dissimilar group) in the second pregnancy were estimated by history of congenital anomaly (overall, by group, by subtype) in the first pregnancy.
resultsThe estimated prevalences of congenital anomaly in first and second pregnancies were 275 (95% CI 270-281) and 163 (95% CI 159-168) per 10,000 respectively. For women whose first pregnancy was affected by congenital anomaly, the AR of recurrent congenital anomaly in the second pregnancy was 408 (95% CI 365-456) per 10,000, 2.5 (95% CI 2.3-2.8, P < 0.0001) times higher than for those with unaffected first pregnancies. For similar anomalies, the recurrence risk was considerably elevated (RR = 23.8, 95% CI 19.6-27.9, P < 0.0001), while for dissimilar anomalies the increase was more modest (RR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6, P = 0.001), although the ARs for both were 2%.
conclusionsAbsolute recurrence risks varied between 1 in 20 and 1 in 30 for most major anomaly groups. At pre-conception and antenatal counselling, women whose first pregnancy was affected by a congenital anomaly and who are planning a further pregnancy may find it reassuring that, despite high relative risks, the absolute recurrence risk is relatively low.
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.