ReviewBirth defects research2024
Scientific impact of the National Birth Defects Prevention Network multistate collaborative publications.
Review in Birth defects research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of data sources and ascertainment methods on reporting paediatric genetic condition prevalence: A scoping review.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026Article
- Mass spectrometry of water-soluble vitamins to establish a risk model for predicting recurrent spontaneous abortion.Scientific reports · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the lack of a national, population-based birth defects surveillance program in the United States, the National Birth Defects Prevention Network (NBDPN) has facilitated important studies on surveillance, research, and prevention of major birth defects. We sought to summarize NBDPN peer-reviewed publications and their impact.
methodsWe obtained and reviewed a curated list of 49 NBDPN multistate collaborative publications during 2000-2022, as of December 31, 2022. Each publication was reviewed and classified by type (e.g., risk factor association analysis). Key characteristics of study populations and analytic approaches used, along with publication impact (e.g., number of citations), were tabulated.
resultsNBDPN publications focused on prevalence estimates (N = 17), surveillance methods (N = 11), risk factor associations (N = 10), mortality and other outcomes among affected individuals (N = 6), and descriptive epidemiology of various birth defects (N = 5). The most cited publications were those that reported on prevalence estimates for a spectrum of defects and those that assessed changes in neural tube defects (NTD) prevalence following mandatory folic acid fortification in the United States.
conclusionsResults from multistate NBDPN publications have provided critical information not available through other sources, including US prevalence estimates of major birth defects, folic acid fortification and NTD prevention, and improved understanding of defect trends and surveillance efforts. Until a national birth defects surveillance program is established in the United States, NBDPN collaborative publications remain an important resource for investigating birth defects and informing decisions related to health services planning of secondary disabilities prevention and care.
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.