Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28762675›Full record

ArticleBirth defects research2017

Major Birth Defects after Vaccination Reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990 to 2014.

Pedro L Moro, Janet Cragan, Paige Lewis, Lakshmi Sukumaran

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Safety and Clinical Benefits of AdacelInfectious diseases and therapy · 2023
    Review
  3. Maternal vaccination: a review of current evidence and recommendations.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pedro L MoroImmunization Safety Office, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia.
Janet CraganDivision of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
Paige LewisImmunization Safety Office, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia.
Lakshmi SukumaranImmunization Safety Office, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsBayes TheoremCongenital AbnormalitiesDatabases, FactualData MiningFemaleHumansInfantPregnancyPrenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsUnited StatesVaccinationVaccinesVaccinesbirth defectsepidemiologysurveillancevaccinevaccine safety

Identifiers

PMID28762675
PMCPMC6528469
OpenAlexW2607361041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.