ArticleBirth defects research2024
Enhancing the Classification of Congenital Heart Defects for Outcome Association Studies in Birth Defects Registries.
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.
- Genomic rare variant mechanisms for congenital cardiac laterality defect: A digenic model approach.American journal of human genetics · 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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTraditional strategies for grouping congenital heart defects (CHDs) using birth defect registry data do not adequately address differences in expected clinical consequences between different combinations of CHDs. We report a lesion-specific classification system for birth defect registry-based outcome studies.
methodsFor Core Cardiac Lesion Outcome Classifications (C-CLOC) groups, common CHDs expected to have reasonable clinical homogeneity were defined. Criteria based on combinations of Centers for Disease and Control-modified British Pediatric Association (BPA) codes were defined for each C-CLOC group. To demonstrate proof of concept and retention of reasonable case counts within C-CLOC groups, Texas Birth Defect Registry data (1999-2017 deliveries) were used to compare case counts and neonatal mortality between traditional vs. C-CLOC classification approaches.
resultsC-CLOC defined 59 CHD groups among 62,262 infants with CHDs. Classifying cases into the single, mutually exclusive C-CLOC group reflecting the highest complexity CHD present reduced case counts among lower complexity lesions (e.g., 86.5% of cases with a common atrium BPA code were reclassified to a higher complexity group for a co-occurring CHD). As expected, C-CLOC groups had retained larger sample sizes (i.e., representing presumably better-powered analytic groups) compared to cases with only one CHD code and no occurring CHDs. DISCUSSION: This new CHD classification system for investigators using birth defect registry data, C-CLOC, is expected to balance clinical outcome homogeneity in analytic groups while maintaining sufficiently large case counts within categories, thus improving power for CHD-specific outcome association comparisons. Future outcome studies utilizing C-CLOC-based classifications are planned.
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.