SynthesisPloS one2023
Structural congenital anomalies in resource limited setting, 2023: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patterns and risk factors of birth defects in Bangladesh: evidence from a neonatal intensive care unit.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- Birth prevalence and associated factors of congenital anomalies among neonates born at a public hospital in Awi Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: institutional based cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA number of studies have looked at neonatal structural birth defects. However, there is no study with a comprehensive review of structural anomalies. Therefor we aimed to verify the best available articles to pool possible risk factors of structural congenital anomalies in resource limited settings.
settingGenuine search of the research articles was done via PubMed, Scopes, Cochrane library, the Web of Science; free Google database search engines, Google Scholar, and Science Direct databases. Published and unpublished articles were searched and screened for inclusion in the final analysis and Studies without sound methodologies, and review and meta-analysis were not included in this analysis.
participantsThis review analyzed data from 95,755 women who have birthed from as reported by primary studies. Ten articles were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles which have no full information important for the analysis and case reports were excluded from the study.
resultsThe overall pooled effect estimate of structural congenital anomalies was 5.50 [4.88-6.12]. In this systematic review and meta-analysis maternal illness effect estimate (EI) with odds ratio (OR) = 4.93 (95%CI 1.02-8.85), unidentified drug use OR = 2.83 (95%CI 1.19-4.46), birth weight OR = 4.20 (95%CI 2.12-6.28), chewing chat OR = 3.73 (95%CI 1.20-6.30), chemical exposure OR = 4.27 (95%CI 1.19-8.44) and taking folic acid tablet during pregnancy OR = 6.01 (95%CI 2.87-14.89) were statistically significant in this meta-regression.
conclusionsThe overall pooled effect estimate of structural congenital anomalies in a resource limited setting was high compared to better resource countries. On the Meta-regression maternal illness, unidentified drug use, birth weight, chewing chat, chemical exposure and never using folic acid were found to be statistically significant variables Preconception care and adequate intake of folic acid before and during early pregnancy should be advised.
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.