ArticleBirth defects research2024
Prevalence of congenital anomalies according to maternal race and ethnicity, Texas, 1999-2018.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Population-Based Study of U.S. Trends in Selected Congenital Anomalies (2016-2023) and Socio-Demographic Disparities: A CDC WONDER Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evidence-based directed acyclic graphs for perinatal pharmacoepidemiologic studies in rheumatology: a structured approach for development and implementation in administrative health data.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2026Article
- Risk-based mapping of pesticide usage and social vulnerability in the contiguous United States.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Prevalence and trends of major congenital anomalies in Brazil: A study from 2011 to 2020.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies of congenital anomalies provide prevalence estimates stratified by maternal race/ethnicity. We sought to determine whether the prevalence of a broad spectrum of anomalies varies among offspring of women from different race/ethnic groups.
methodsWe obtained information on cases with anomalies from the population-based Texas Birth Defects Registry, and denominator data on livebirths among Texas residents during 1999-2018 from the Texas Center for Health Statistics. We estimated the prevalence ratio (PR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of N = 145 anomalies among offspring of Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black relative to non-Hispanic White women using Poisson regression, adjusting for maternal age, education, body mass index, and previous livebirths. We performed a two-stage analysis with a Bonferroni-adjusted p < 1.7 × 10
resultsThere were 7,698,768 livebirths and 1,187,385 anomalies diagnosed in 368,393 cases. The prevalence of any monitored congenital anomaly was similar among offspring of non-Hispanic White (referent), non-Hispanic Black (PR 0.98, CI 0.96-1.00), and Hispanic (PR 0.95, CI 0.93-0.96) women. We observed statistically significant racial/ethnic variation for 42 anomalies. Marked differences were observed when comparing offspring of non-Hispanic Black to non-Hispanic White women with respect to polydactyly (PR 4.38, CI 4.07-4.72), pyloric stenosis (PR 0.34, CI 0.29-0.40), and aortic valve atresia/stenosis (PR 0.51, CI 0.36-0.72).
conclusionsBirth prevalence of many major congenital anomalies varies by maternal race and ethnicity. While the reasons for these differences are likely multifactorial, a thorough understanding of racial and ethnic disparities is useful to stimulate etiologic research.
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.