Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32101337›Full record

ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2020

Multilevel analyses of related public health indicators: The European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT) Public Health Indicators.

Kate E Best, Judith Rankin, Helen Dolk, Maria Loane, Martin Haeusler, Vera Nelen, Christine Verellen-Dumoulin, Ester Garne, Gerardine Sayers, Carmel Mullaney and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

23 authors.

Kate E BestInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4663-7141
Judith RankinInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Helen DolkCentre for Maternal, Fetal and Infant Research, Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Ulster, UK.
Maria LoaneCentre for Maternal, Fetal and Infant Research, Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Ulster, UK.
Martin HaeuslerMedical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Vera NelenProvinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium.
Christine Verellen-DumoulinEurocat Hainaut -Namur, Centre for Human Genetics, Institut de Pathologie et de Génétique, IPG, Charleroi, Belgium.
Ester GarnePaediatric Department, Hospital Lillebaelt, Kolding, Denmark.
Gerardine SayersHealth Intelligence, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland.
Carmel MullaneyPublic Health Department, HSE Southeast area, Lacken, Kilkenny, Ireland.
Mary T O'MahonyDepartment of Public Health, Health Service Executive South, Cork, Ireland.
Miriam GattDepartment of Health Information and Research, Guardamangia, Malta.
Hermien De WalleDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Kari KlungsoyrDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Olatz Mokoroa CarollaPublic Health Division of Gipuzkoa, BioDonostia Research Institute, San Sebastian, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3831-6089
Clara Cavero-CarbonellRare Diseases Research Unit, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of the Valencian Region, Valencia, Spain.
Jennifer J KurinczukNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Elizabeth S DraperDepartment Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
David TuckerCongenital Anomaly Register and Information Service for Wales, Public Health Wales, Swansea, UK.
Diana WellesleyFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton and Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Southampton, UK.
Nataliia Zymak-ZakutniaOMNI-Net Ukraine and Khmelnytsky Children Hospital, Khmelnytsky, Ukraine.
Nathalie LelongINSERM U1153 (Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology), Maternité Port Royal, Paris, France.
Babak KhoshnoodINSERM U1153 (Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology), Maternité Port Royal, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4031-4915

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic health organisations use public health indicators to guide health policy. Joint analysis of multiple public health indicators can provide a more comprehensive understanding of what they are intended to evaluate.

objectiveTo analyse variaitons in the prevalence of congenital anomaly-related perinatal mortality attributable to termination of pregnancy for foetal anomaly (TOPFA) and prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomaly prevalence.

methodsWe included 55 363 cases of congenital anomalies notified to 18 EUROCAT registers in 10 countries during 2008-12. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) representing the risk of congenital anomaly-related perinatal mortality according to TOPFA and prenatal diagnosis prevalence were estimated using multilevel Poisson regression with country as a random effect. Between-country variation in congenital anomaly-related perinatal mortality was measured using random effects and compared between the null and adjusted models to estimate the percentage of variation in congenital anomaly-related perinatal mortality accounted for by TOPFA and prenatal diagnosis.

resultsThe risk of congenital anomaly-related perinatal mortality decreased as TOPFA and prenatal diagnosis prevalence increased (IRR 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72, 0.86; and IRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79, 0.97). Modelling TOPFA and prenatal diagnosis together, the association between congenital anomaly-related perinatal mortality and TOPFA prevalence became stronger (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61, 0.81). The prevalence of TOPFA and prenatal diagnosis accounted for 75.5% and 37.7% of the between-country variation in perinatal mortality, respectively.

conclusionWe demonstrated an approach for analysing inter-linked public health indicators. In this example, as TOPFA and prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomaly prevalence decreased, the risk of congenital anomaly-related perinatal mortality increased. Much of the between-country variation in congenital anomaly-related perinatal mortality was accounted for by TOPFA, with a smaller proportion accounted for by prenatal diagnosis.

Indexed as

Congenital AbnormalitiesPrenatal DiagnosisAbortion, EugenicAdultEuropeFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornMultilevel AnalysisPerinatal MortalityPregnancyPrevalencePublic Health SurveillanceRegistriesperinatal mortalitytermination of pregnancy for foetal anomaly

Identifiers

PMID32101337
PMCPMC7064886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.