ArticleBMJ open2023
Antiasthmatic prescriptions in children with and without congenital anomalies: a population-based study.
Article in BMJ open, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic mapping of rare genetic disease studies using UK primary care electronic health records.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Mortality amongst European children with congenital anomalies: Associations with socio-economic status in the EUROLINKCAT cohort.PloS one · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the risk of being prescribed/dispensed medications for respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulties in children with and without congenital anomalies.
designA EUROlinkCAT population-based data linkage cohort study. Data on children with and without congenital anomalies were linked to prescription databases to identify children who did/did not receive antiasthmatic prescriptions. Data were analysed by age, European region, class of antiasthmatic, anomaly, sex, gestational age and birth cohort.
settingChildren born 2000-2014 in six regions within five European countries.
participants60 662 children with congenital anomalies and 1 722 912 reference children up to age 10 years. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Relative risks (RR) of >1 antiasthmatic prescription in a year, identified using Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification codes beginning with R03.
resultsThere were significant differences in the prescribing of antiasthmatics in the six regions. Children with congenital anomalies had a significantly higher risk of being prescribed antiasthmatics (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.48) compared with reference children. The increased risk was consistent across all regions and all age groups. Children with congenital anomalies were more likely to be prescribed beta-2 agonists (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.60 to 1.83) and inhaled corticosteroids (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.61 to 1.87). Children with oesophageal atresia, genetic syndromes and chromosomal anomalies had over twice the risk of being prescribed antiasthmatics compared with reference children. Children with congenital anomalies born <32 weeks gestational age were over twice as likely to be prescribed antiasthmatics than those born at term (RR 2.20, 95% CI 2.10 to 2.30).
conclusionThis study documents the additional burden of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulties for children with congenital anomalies, particularly those born preterm, compared with children without congenital anomalies in the first 10 years of life. These findings are beneficial to clinicians and healthcare providers as they identify children with greater morbidity associated with respiratory symptoms, as indicated by antiasthmatic prescriptions.
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.