ArticleBirth defects research2023
The quality and the accuracy of codes for terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomalies recorded in hospital databases in three countries in northern Europe.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of congenital anomaly coding in live birth children recorded in European health care databases, a EUROlinkCAT study.European journal of epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Congenital Gastrointestinal Malformations in a Romanian Tertiary Centre (2020-2024): A Retrospective Cohort Study of Diagnosis, Distribution, and Outcomes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The EUROmediCAT Network and Databases: A Resource for Pharmacovigilance in Pregnancy.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Recommendations for Improving Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies in Europe Using Healthcare Databases.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2025Article
- The quality and the accuracy of codes for terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomalies recorded in hospital databases in three countries in northern Europe.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
10 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe number of terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomalies in Europe (TOPFA) has increased over recent decades. Therefore, it is important that TOPFAs, in addition to all other birth outcomes, are included in the surveillance of congenital anomalies and in studies on possible teratogenic risks of pregnancy exposures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and the accuracy of codes identifying TOPFA cases in hospital databases.
methodsTOPFA cases recorded in three EUROCAT congenital anomaly registries (Finland, 2010-2014; Funen in Denmark, 2005-2014; and northern Netherlands, 2013-2014) were linked to hospital databases using maternal IDs.
resultsA total of 2,114 TOPFA cases over the study period were identified in the registries and 2,096 (99%) of these pregnancies were identified in the hospital databases. An end of pregnancy code was present for 91% of the cases and a code for a congenital anomaly was present for 82% (with some differences across registries). The proportion of TOPFA cases with a code for a specific congenital anomaly was <50% for cases with a structural anomaly (range 0%-50%) and 70% for cases with a chromosomal anomaly.
conclusionHospital databases have limited information or codes to identify TOPFAs for specific anomalies and the data are not detailed enough for surveillance of congenital anomalies or for studies analyzing pregnancy exposures and risk of congenital anomalies. However, hospital data may be used to identify the occurrence of a TOPFA to enable more detailed information to be obtained from the medical records.
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.