RELIABILITY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE REPORTING OF CONGENITAL-ANOMALIES

被引:38
作者
SNELL, LM
LITTLE, BB
KNOLL, KA
JOHNSTON, WL
ROSENFELD, CR
GANT, NF
机构
[1] Departments of Family Practice and Community Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
关键词
D O I
10.1055/s-2007-999325
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Birth certificates comprise an important source of data on the prevalence of genetic conditions and for monitoring possible teratogens in the population. Investigators have found wide variability (12 to 100%) in the accuracy of reporting. In a large public hospital, of those congenital anomalies detected at birth, only 5.4% were recorded on the birth certificate. This is one of the lowest rates ever reported. An underreporting correction factor may be applied if congenital anomalies are distributed randomly with respect to reporting status, and the rate of reporting is sufficient to comprise a valid sample for estimating a correction factor (that is, 20% or more reported). In this study, factors such as numbers or types of anomalies, race, infant birthweight, or estimated gestational age did not significantly influence the rate of birth certificate reporting. Thus, our data satisfied the first but not the second criterion for derivation of a correction factor. In conducting epidemiologic studies, birth certificate data should be used with: (1) great caution; (2) a system of validation with the medical record to estimate the degree of underreporting and to derive a correction factor; and (3) a priori knowledge that underreporting of congenital anomalies on this document is highly prevalent.
引用
收藏
页码:219 / 222
页数:4
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
Bakketeig L.S., Hoffman H.J., Tit muss-Oakley A., Perinatal mortality, Braken M (ed.): Perinatal Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 99-151, (1984)
[2]  
Kallen B., Epidemiology of Human Reproduction, (1988)
[3]  
Hay S., Lunde A.S., Mackeprang M., Background and methodology of a study of congenital malformations, Public Health Rep, 35, pp. 913-917, (1970)
[4]  
Frost F., Starzyk P., George S., McLaughlin J.F., Birth complication reporting: The effect of birth certificate design, Am J Public Health, 74, pp. 505-506, (1984)
[5]  
Mackeprang M., Hay S., Credibility of reporting of malformations in birth certificates, JAMA, 222, (1972)
[6]  
Green H.G., Nelson C.J., Gaylor D.W., Holson J.F., Accuracy of birth certificate data for detecting facial cleft defects in Arkansas children, Cleft Palate J, 16, pp. 167-170, (1979)
[7]  
Seegmiller R.E., Swenson M.W., Skinner G.C., Et al., Reporting of congenital malformations on Utah birth certificates, (1981)
[8]  
Naylor A., Eaton A.P., Aplin E.R., Eska B., Birth certificate revision and reporting of congenital malformations, Am J Public Health, 64, pp. 786-791, (1974)
[9]  
Minton S.D., Seegmiller R.E., An improved system for reporting congenital malformations, JAMA, 256, pp. 2976-2979, (1986)
[10]  
Little B.B., Snell L.M., Gilstrap L.C., Gant N.F., Rosenfeld C.R., Alcohol abuse during pregnancy: Changes in frequency in a large urban hospital, Obstet Gynecol, 74, pp. 547-550, (1989)