ArticleJournal of community genetics2025
Prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies and birth institution complexity levels in Argentina.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patiens with major congenital anomalies diagnosed prenatally should be referred to and delivered in institutions with the appropriate level of complexity, as this reduces morbidity and mortality. We aimed to assess the prevalence and prenatal diagnosis proportion of selected congenital abnormalities and the complexity levels of birth institutions in a sample of public maternity hospitals in Argentina. Data sources were (1) National Congenital Anomalies Registry, covering the period from 2013 to 2021; and (2) Categorization of birth institutions according to their complexity (high or low). Newborns with the following anomalies were selected for analysis: spina bifida, hydrocephalus, critical congenital heart defects, diaphragmatic hernia, gastroschisis, and omphalocele. Prevalences at birth and prenatal diagnosis proportions were calculated according to the birth institution complexity level. A total of 2.214.102 births across 131 institutions were evaluated, with 1.202.311 births in high-complexity institutions and 1.011.791 in low-complexity institutions. The prevalences per 10.000 births and the prenatal diagnosis proportions for the entire sample were: spina bifida 5,40(95%CI 5,10 - 5,71) 68,54%; hydrocephalus 6,96(95% CI 6,62 - 7,32) 78,92%; critical congenital heart defects 11,05(95% CI 10,62 - 11,49) 43,21%; diaphragmatic hernia 3,88(95%CI 3,62 - 4,14) 68,65%; gastroschisis 7,85(95%CI 7,48 - 8,22) 79,27%; omphalocele 2,01(95%CI 1,83 - 2,20) 76,18%. Prevalences and prenatal diagnosis porportions were significantly higher in high-complexity institutions. Prenatal diagnosis and perinatal care networks must be improved to ensure that patients with major congenital anomalies are delivered in high-complexity birth institutions. The prevalence and prenatal diagnosis porportion, stratified by the complexity level of institutions, can serve as management indicators to evaluate improvements in care quality.
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.