ArticleInternational journal of population data science2019
The Baby Hearts Study - a case-control methodology with data linkage to evaluate risk and protective factors for congenital heart disease.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Baby Hearts study aimed to investigate risk and protective factors for congenital heart disease (CHD), and to investigate the health behaviours of a representative sample of pregnant women in Northern Ireland.
objectivesWe describe and evaluate the population-based case-control design enhanced with data linkage to administrative health data.
methodsCases (mothers of babies with CHD, n=286) were recruited following diagnosis prenatally or postnatally. Controls (mothers of babies without CHD, n=966) were recruited at 18-22 weeks gestation, from all women attending each maternity unit during a designated month. Hybrid data collection methods were used, including a self-administered iPad/postal questionnaire, and linkage to maternity and prescription records.
resultsRefusal rates were low (8%). iPad questionnaire completion at clinic or home visit had high acceptability whereas postal questionnaires were poorly returned leading to a further 9-10% loss of eligible cases/controls. In total, 61% of eligible cases and 68% of eligible controls were recruited, closely representative of the Northern Ireland population, with no evidence of selection bias. Of those recruited, 97% gave consent for linkage to medical records. Thirty-three percent of women had an unplanned pregnancy and 76% suspected they were pregnant by 5 weeks gestation, with no significant differences between cases and controls. There was considerable discordance between self-report, maternity and prescription records regarding medications obtained/taken in the first trimester, but no evidence of differences between cases and controls that would indicate substantial recall bias. Although there was high concordance between self-report and maternity records regarding folic acid supplementation, cases had significantly lower concordance than controls.
conclusionsOur results suggest hybrid data collection approaches are a useful way forward for aetiological studies to reduce responder burden and address and estimate recall bias, and that the Baby Hearts study protocol is suitable for replication in other populations, modified to the local context.
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.