ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Prevalence and prenatal diagnosis of major congenital anomalies in Dubai: first insights and emerging patterns in a multicenter cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on the prevalence and prenatal diagnosis of birth defects in Dubai is lacking. There are currently no guidelines specifying the content or standardized technique for performing prenatal ultrasound scans in Dubai. Maternal factors such as higher body mass index, weight gain, advanced maternal age, diabetes, and uterine scarring can affect imaging quality and prenatal anomaly detection, and are becoming more prevalent.
methodsThe primary objectives were to assess the birth prevalence of major congenital anomalies as defined by EUROCAT and the corresponding prenatal detection rates within a network of tertiary care centers in Dubai between 2019 and 2023. Secondary objectives included comparing prenatal detection based on the location of ultrasound scans - specifically, performed in a network of tertiary care facilities using international ultrasound guidelines versus scans done outside our network, and for scans performed at our facilities, assessing the influence of gestational age, sonologists, and maternal characteristics (body mass index, age, weight gain, diabetes, uterine scarring) through mixed-effect logistic regression. Scan duration and the need for repeat scans were evaluated using Spearman correlation tests.
resultsThe prevalence of major anomalies was 335 (95% confidence interval: 301-372)/10000 live births and stillbirths, and 35.27/10000 for genetic anomalies. Prenatal detection was 70.3% for scans performed in our network, and 46.3% for scans done outside (P<.001). Most women (81.2%) had risk factors for reduced visibility. Scan duration and repeat scans correlated positively with C-sections, maternal age, and body mass index, though weakly. No significant association was found between external factors and prenatal detection (P=.9).
conclusionsThe prevalence of major anomalies was high. High detection rates were observed in a setting where practitioners come from diverse training backgrounds, and where most patients have risk factors for reduced visibility.
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.