ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2019
Impact evaluation of Zika epidemic on congenital anomalies registration in Brazil: An interrupted time series analysis.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific production on health inequalities using the Brazilian Information System on Live Births: a scoping review.Cadernos de saude publica · 2026Article
- Epidemiological surveillance in congenital anomalies and rare diseases in Brazil: present situation and future challenges.Journal of community genetics · 2025Review
- Geographic distribution of live births and infant mortality from congenital anomalies in Brazil, 2012-2017.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Impact of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM coding transition on trauma hospitalization trends among young adults in 12 states.Injury epidemiology · 2021Article
- Spatiotemporal Analysis of the Population Risk of Congenital Microcephaly in Pernambuco State, Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the impact of the Zika epidemic on the registration of birth defects in Brazil. We used an interrupted time series analysis design to identify changes in the trends in the registration of congenital anomalies. We obtained monthly data from Brazilian Live Birth Information System and used two outcome definitions: 1) rate of congenital malformation of the brain and eye (likely to be affected by Zika and its complications) 2) rate of congenital malformation not related to the brain or eye unlikely to be causally affected by Zika. The period between maternal infection with Zika and diagnosis of congenital abnormality attributable to the infection is around six months. We therefore used September 2015 as the interruption point in the time series, six months following March 2015 when cases of Zika started to increase. For the purposes of this analysis, we considered the period from January 2010 to September 2015 to be "pre-Zika event," and the period from just after September 2015 to December 2017 to be "post-Zika event." We found that immediately after the interruption point, there was a great increase in the notification rate of congenital anomalies of 14.9/10,000 live births in the brain and eye group and of 5.2/10,000 live births in the group not related with brain or eye malformations. This increase in reporting was in all regions of the country (except in the South) and especially in the Northeast. In the period "post-Zika event", unlike the brain and eye group which showed a monthly decrease, the group without brain or eye malformations showed a slow but significant increase (relative to the pre-Zika trend) of 0.2/10,000 live births. These findings suggest an overall improvement in the registration of birth malformations, including malformations that were not attributed to Zika, during and after the Zika epidemic.
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.