Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39652147›Full record

ReviewJournal of community genetics2025

Birth defects reporting and surveillance in India: a narrative review.

Anita Kar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of community genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Anita KarBirth Defects Research Foundation, Pune, 411020, India. dranitakar@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1336-4244

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mortality attributable to birth defects (congenital anomalies, congenital disorders) is increasing in low and middle-income countries, including India. Surveillance is essential to inform strategies to address these disorders. The objective of this narrative review was to document the birth defects surveillance/reporting systems in India, their current status, structures and reporting formats. The review used empirical analysis of retrieved literature to answer the framed research questions. Publications on birth defects surveillance in India was negligible. Website searches yielded information on two surveillance systems. The WHO South East Asia Region-Newborn-Birth Defects (SEAR-NBBD) surveillance for congenital disorders uses a non-representative sample of hospitals to conduct passive surveillance for eight congenital anomalies. The system has a hierarchy of quality control measures to assure data accuracy. The second system is a child screening and early intervention service (the Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram, RBSK), which reports data on nine birth defects among children screened at birth, in the first six weeks of life, and till 18 years of age. The RBSK uses existing community-based staff and competency-appropriate screening tools that incorporate defined referral routes to secondary or tertiary level of care. Data from neither of these systems is available in the public domain. The review identified that the strengths and weaknesses of both these systems can be utilized to put in place a potentially sustainable sentinel surveillance for monitoring birth defects in India.

Indexed as

Birth defectsCongenital anomaliesIndiaNewbornRBSKSEAR-NBBDSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID39652147
PMCPMC11950570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.