ArticleBirth defects research2023
Validation of case definition algorithms for the ascertainment of congenital anomalies.
Article in Birth defects research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of major congenital malformations based on healthcare databases in France: A proof-of-concept study using the epi-meres nationwide mother-child register.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Article
- Innovation through collaboration: Identifying opportunities to improve congenital anomalies surveillance in Canada.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2025Article
- Validation of case definition algorithms for the ascertainment of congenital anomalies.Birth defects research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCongenital anomalies (CA) are one of the leading causes of infant mortality and long-term disability. Many jurisdictions rely on health administrative data to monitor these conditions. Case definition algorithms can be used to monitor CA; however, validation of these algorithms is needed to understand the strengths and limitations of the data. This study aimed to validate case definition algorithms used in a CA surveillance system in British Columbia (BC), Canada.
methodsA cohort of births between March 2000 and April 2002 in BC was linked to the Health Status Registry (HSR) and the BC Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (BCCASS) to identify cases and non-cases of specific anomalies within each surveillance system. Measures of algorithm performance were calculated for each CA using the HSR as the reference standard. Agreement between both databases was calculated using kappa coefficient. The modified Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy guidelines were used to enhance the quality of the study.
resultsMeasures of algorithm performance varied by condition. Positive predictive value (PPV) ranged between approximately 73%-100%. Sensitivity was lower than PPV for most conditions. Internal congenital anomalies or conditions not easily identifiable at birth had the lowest sensitivity. Specificity and negative predictive value exceeded 99% for all algorithms.
conclusionCase definition algorithms may be used to monitor CA at the population level. Accuracy of algorithms is higher for conditions that are easily identified at birth. Jurisdictions with similar administrative data may benefit from using validated case definitions for CA surveillance as this facilitates cross-jurisdictional comparison.
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.