Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36561944›Full record

SynthesisTheScientificWorldJournal2022

Proportion of Chromosomal Disorders and Their Patterns among Births with Congenital Anomalies in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

Teshome Gebremeskel Aragie, Girma Seyoum Gedion

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Teshome Gebremeskel AragieWoldia University, College of Health Sciences, Department of Anatomy, Woldia, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6968-5605
Girma Seyoum GedionAddis Ababa University, College of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Worldwide, surveys have shown that the frequency of chromosomal disorders among births with congenital anomalies varies greatly from country to country. It is well known that chromosomal disorders are an important cause of premature death or life-long disability; however, the absence of local epidemiological data on their birth prevalence and outcomes impedes policy and service development in many countries and continents. Therefore, the current systematic review and meta-analysis intend to show the pooled proportion of chromosomal disorders among births with congenital anomalies in Africa. Methods: From PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, we systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the studies that examined the incidence, prevalence, and types of chromosomal disorders using PRISMA guidelines. A weighted inverse variance random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled proportion of chromosomal disorders among births with congenital anomalies. Results: From the total of 3,569 studies identified, 1,442 were from PubMed, 108 were from Cochrane Library, 1,830 were from Google Scholar, and 189 were from other sources. After duplication was removed, a total of 844 articles remained (2725 were removed by duplication). Finally, 144 full-text studies were reviewed and 60 articles with 52,569 births having congenital anomalies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this meta-analysis. The pooled proportion of chromosomal disorders among births with congenital anomalies was 8.94% (95% CI; 7.02, 10.86;

Indexed as

Chromosome DisordersAfricaFemaleHumansIncidenceParturitionPregnancyPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID36561944
PMCPMC9767725

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.