ArticleBirth defects research2022
A cross-sectional study of brownfields and birth defects.
Article in Birth defects research, 2022. 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.
- Pooled it
- Phytoscreening the homes of pregnant residents for volatile organic compounds: a pilot study in metro Detroit.Frontiers in environmental health · 2026Article
- Disparities in demographic and health indicators among communities by frequency of hazardous waste sites in Indiana, USA: differences by Superfund vs. brownfield classification.Environmental justice (Print) · 2025Article
- Lead brownfields and birth defects in North Carolina 2003-2015: A cross-sectional case-control study.Birth defects research · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBrownfields are a multitude of abandoned and disused sites, spanning many former purposes. Brownfields represent a heterogenous yet ubiquitous exposure for many Americans, which may contain hazardous wastes and represent urban blight. Neonates and pregnant individuals are often sensitive to subtle environmental exposures. We evaluate whether residential brownfield exposure is associated with birth defects.
methodsUsing North Carolina birth records from 2003 to 2015, we sampled 753,195 births with 39,495 defects identified. We examined defect groups and 30 distinct phenotypes. Number of brownfields within 2,000 m of the residential address at birth was summed. We utilized mixed effects multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for demographic and environmental covariates available from birth records, 2010 Census, and EPA's Environmental Quality Index to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsWe observed positive associations between cardiovascular and external defect groups (OR [95% CI]: 1.07 [1.02-1.13] and 1.17 [1.01-1.35], respectively) and any brownfield exposure. We also observed positive associations with atrial septal and ventricular septal defects (1.08 [1.01-1.16] and 1.15 [1.03-1.28], respectively), congenital cataracts (1.38 [0.98-1.96]), and an inverse association with gastroschisis (0.74 [0.58-0.94]). Effect estimates for several additional defects were positive, though we observed null associations for most group and individual defects. Additional analyses indicated an exposure-response relationship for several defects across levels of brownfield exposure.
conclusionsOur results indicate that residential proximity to brownfields is associated with birth defects, especially cardiovascular and external defects. In-depth analyses of individual defects and specific contaminants or brownfield sites may reveal additional novel associations.
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.