ArticleBirth defects research2024
Expanding the Massachusetts Birth Defects Monitoring Program to include additional pregnancy outcomes: Programmatic efforts and impacts on case ascertainment, 2012-2020.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBirth defects affect 1 in 33 infants in the United States and are a leading cause of infant mortality. Birth defects surveillance is crucial for informing public health action. The Massachusetts Birth Defects Monitoring Program (MBDMP) began collecting other pregnancy losses (OPLs) in 2011, including miscarriages (<20 weeks gestation) or elective terminations (any gestational age), in addition to live births and stillbirths (≥20 weeks gestation). We describe programmatic changes for adding OPLs and their impact on prevalence estimates.
methodsUsing population-based, statewide, data from the MBDMP (2012-2020), we assessed prevalence per 10,000 live births and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with and without OPLs overall and for specific birth defects by time period, maternal age, and race/ethnicity.
resultsIncluding OPLs required amending a state statute and promulgating regulations, new data sources, and additional data processing, cleaning, and verification. Overall prevalence with OPLs increased from 257.4 (95% CI: 253.5-261.4) to 333.9 (95% CI: 329.4-338.4) per 10,000; increases were observed in all time periods, age, and race/ethnicity groups. After including OPLs, the prevalence increased for neural tube defects [3.2 (2.7-3.6) to 8.3 (7.6-9.0)], and trisomies 13 [0.5 (0.3-0.7) to 4.1 (3.6-4.6)], 18 [1.5 (1.2-1.9) to 8.2 (7.5-8.9)], and 21 [12.3 (11.4-13.2) to 28.9 (27.6-30.2)]. Cardiovascular defects increased slightly, while prevalence of eye/ear, respiratory, and gastrointestinal defects remained similar.
conclusionsAdding OPLs required substantial programmatic efforts and resulted in more complete case ascertainment, particularly for certain birth defects. More complete case ascertainment will allow for improved research, screening, and resource allocation.
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.