ArticleBirth defects research2025
Case-Control Study of Congenital Anomalies: Study Methods and Nonresponse Bias Assessment.
Article in Birth defects research, 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
Abstract
backgroundTo describe the methods of a congenital anomalies case-control study conducted in New Zealand, discuss the encountered methodological difficulties, and evaluate the potential for nonresponse bias.
methodsThe potential cases (n = 2710) were New Zealand live births in 2007-2009 randomly selected from the New Zealand Congenital Anomalies Registry. The potential controls (n = 2989) included live births identified from the Maternity and Newborn Information System, frequency matched to cases by the child's year of birth and sex. Mothers were invited to complete an interview covering demographic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Response probabilities for case and control mothers were evaluated in relation to maternal age, deprivation, occupation, and ethnicity, available from the Electoral Roll, and inverse probability weights (IPWs) for participation were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) for key demographic and selected risk factors were estimated through unconditional logistic regression, with and without IPW.
resultsA total of 652 (24%) of case mothers and 505 (17%) of control mothers completed the interview. Younger and more deprived mothers were underrepresented among the participants, particularly for controls, resulting in inflated ORs of associations with congenital anomalies for younger age, Māori ethnicity, deprivation, and risk factors under study, such as blue-collar occupations and smoking, indicative of nonresponse bias. Nonresponse bias was minimized through IPW, resulting in ORs and exposure prevalence estimates similar to those based on the prerecruitment sample.
conclusionsAttaining high participation rates was difficult in this study that was conducted in new mothers, particularly for the controls. The resulting nonresponse bias was minimized through IPW.
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.