ArticleBirth defects research2017
Major Birth Defects after Vaccination Reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990 to 2014.
Article in Birth defects research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The quantity, reliability, transparency, reporting, and interpretation of pharmacovigilance signal detection studies in pregnancy: a meta-epidemiological study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and Clinical Benefits of AdacelInfectious diseases and therapy · 2023Review
- Maternal vaccination: a review of current evidence and recommendations.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Review
- Updates on Vaccine Safety and Post-Licensure Surveillance for Adverse Events Following Immunization in South Korea, 2005-2017.Yonsei medical journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMajor birth defects are important infant outcomes that have not been well studied in the postmarketing surveillance of vaccines given to pregnant women. We assessed the presence of major birth defects following vaccination in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national spontaneous reporting system used to monitor the safety of vaccines in the United States.
methodsWe searched VAERS for reports of major birth defects during January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2014. We excluded birth defects from vaccines that had been studied in pregnancy registries or other epidemiological studies (e.g., human papilloma virus, varicella, measles/mumps/rubella, and anthrax vaccines). Birth defects were categorized into trimester of vaccination and classified based on the organs and/or systems affected. If several birth defects affecting different systems were described, we classified those as multiple body systems. Empirical Bayesian data mining was used to assess for disproportionate reporting.
resultsWe identified 50 reports of major birth defects; in 28 reports, the vaccine was given during the first trimester; 25 were reports with single vaccines administered. Birth defects accounted for 0.03% of all reports received by VAERS during the study period and 3.2% of pregnancy reports; reported defects affected predominately the musculoskeletal (N = 10) or nervous (N = 10) systems. No unusual clusters or specific birth defects were identified.
conclusionThis review of the VAERS database found that major birth defects were infrequently reported, with no particular condition reported disproportionally. Birth defects after routine maternal vaccination will continue to be monitored in VAERS for signals to prompt future studies. Birth Defects Research 109:1057-1062, 2017. © 2017 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.