2009年至2013年美国基于人群的小头畸形监测:潜在变异来源分析

J. Cragan, Jennifer L Isenburg, S. E. Parker, C. Alverson, R. Meyer, Erin B Stallings, R. Kirby, P. Lupo, Jennifer S. Liu, Amanda Seagroves, M. Ethen, Sook Ja Cho, M. Evans, R. Liberman, J. Fornoff, M. Browne, Rachel E. Rutkowski, A. Nance, M. Anderka, D. Fox, A. Steele, G. Copeland, P. Romitti, Cara T Mai
{"title":"2009年至2013年美国基于人群的小头畸形监测:潜在变异来源分析","authors":"J. Cragan, Jennifer L Isenburg, S. E. Parker, C. Alverson, R. Meyer, Erin B Stallings, R. Kirby, P. Lupo, Jennifer S. Liu, Amanda Seagroves, M. Ethen, Sook Ja Cho, M. Evans, R. Liberman, J. Fornoff, M. Browne, Rachel E. Rutkowski, A. Nance, M. Anderka, D. Fox, A. Steele, G. Copeland, P. Romitti, Cara T Mai","doi":"10.1002/bdra.23587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nCongenital microcephaly has been linked to maternal Zika virus infection. However, ascertaining infants diagnosed with microcephaly can be challenging.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThirty birth defects surveillance programs provided data on infants diagnosed with microcephaly born 2009 to 2013. The pooled prevalence of microcephaly per 10,000 live births was estimated overall and by maternal/infant characteristics. Variation in prevalence was examined across case finding methods. Nine programs provided data on head circumference and conditions potentially contributing to microcephaly.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe pooled prevalence of microcephaly was 8.7 per 10,000 live births. Median prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was similar among programs using active (6.7) and passive (6.6) methods; the interdecile range of prevalence estimates was wider among programs using passive methods for all race/ethnicity categories except Hispanic. Prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was lowest among non-Hispanic Whites (6.5) and highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics (11.2 and 11.9, respectively); estimates followed a U-shaped distribution by maternal age with the highest prevalence among mothers <20 years (11.5) and ≥40 years (13.2). For gestational age and birth weight, the highest prevalence was among infants <32 weeks gestation and infants <1500 gm. Case definitions varied; 41.8% of cases had an HC ≥ the 10th percentile for sex and gestational age.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nDifferences in methods, population distribution of maternal/infant characteristics, and case definitions for microcephaly can contribute to the wide range of observed prevalence estimates across individual birth defects surveillance programs. Addressing these factors in the setting of Zika virus infection can improve the quality of prevalence estimates. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:972-982, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.","PeriodicalId":8983,"journal":{"name":"Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology","volume":"45 1","pages":"972-982"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"55","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Population-based microcephaly surveillance in the United States, 2009 to 2013: An analysis of potential sources of variation.\",\"authors\":\"J. Cragan, Jennifer L Isenburg, S. E. Parker, C. Alverson, R. Meyer, Erin B Stallings, R. Kirby, P. Lupo, Jennifer S. Liu, Amanda Seagroves, M. Ethen, Sook Ja Cho, M. Evans, R. Liberman, J. Fornoff, M. Browne, Rachel E. Rutkowski, A. Nance, M. Anderka, D. Fox, A. Steele, G. Copeland, P. Romitti, Cara T Mai\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdra.23587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nCongenital microcephaly has been linked to maternal Zika virus infection. However, ascertaining infants diagnosed with microcephaly can be challenging.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nThirty birth defects surveillance programs provided data on infants diagnosed with microcephaly born 2009 to 2013. The pooled prevalence of microcephaly per 10,000 live births was estimated overall and by maternal/infant characteristics. Variation in prevalence was examined across case finding methods. Nine programs provided data on head circumference and conditions potentially contributing to microcephaly.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe pooled prevalence of microcephaly was 8.7 per 10,000 live births. Median prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was similar among programs using active (6.7) and passive (6.6) methods; the interdecile range of prevalence estimates was wider among programs using passive methods for all race/ethnicity categories except Hispanic. Prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was lowest among non-Hispanic Whites (6.5) and highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics (11.2 and 11.9, respectively); estimates followed a U-shaped distribution by maternal age with the highest prevalence among mothers <20 years (11.5) and ≥40 years (13.2). For gestational age and birth weight, the highest prevalence was among infants <32 weeks gestation and infants <1500 gm. Case definitions varied; 41.8% of cases had an HC ≥ the 10th percentile for sex and gestational age.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nDifferences in methods, population distribution of maternal/infant characteristics, and case definitions for microcephaly can contribute to the wide range of observed prevalence estimates across individual birth defects surveillance programs. Addressing these factors in the setting of Zika virus infection can improve the quality of prevalence estimates. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:972-982, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"972-982\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"55\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23587\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

摘要

背景先天性小头症与母体感染寨卡病毒有关。然而,确定诊断为小头畸形的婴儿可能具有挑战性。方法30个出生缺陷监测项目提供了2009 - 2013年出生的小头畸形患儿的数据。根据总体和母婴特征估计每10,000活产婴儿中小头畸形的总患病率。不同的病例发现方法检查了患病率的差异。9个项目提供了有关头围和可能导致小头畸形的条件的数据。结果小头畸形的总患病率为8.7 / 10000。在使用主动(6.7)和被动(6.6)方法的项目中,中位患病率(每10,000例活产)相似;除西班牙裔外,在所有种族/族裔类别中使用被动方法的项目中,患病率估计的十分位数范围更大。患病率(每1万例活产)在非西班牙裔白人中最低(6.5例),在非西班牙裔黑人和西班牙裔人中最高(分别为11.2和11.9例);根据产妇年龄,估计呈u型分布,年龄<20岁(11.5)和≥40岁(13.2)的产妇患病率最高。就胎龄和出生体重而言,患病率最高的是妊娠<32周和<1500克的婴儿。41.8%的病例HC≥性别和胎龄的第10百分位。结论:小头畸形的方法、母婴特征的人群分布和病例定义的差异可能导致个体出生缺陷监测项目中观察到的患病率估计范围很大。在寨卡病毒感染的背景下处理这些因素可以提高流行率估计的质量。出生缺陷研究(A部分)106:972-982,2016。©2016 Wiley期刊公司
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Population-based microcephaly surveillance in the United States, 2009 to 2013: An analysis of potential sources of variation.
BACKGROUND Congenital microcephaly has been linked to maternal Zika virus infection. However, ascertaining infants diagnosed with microcephaly can be challenging. METHODS Thirty birth defects surveillance programs provided data on infants diagnosed with microcephaly born 2009 to 2013. The pooled prevalence of microcephaly per 10,000 live births was estimated overall and by maternal/infant characteristics. Variation in prevalence was examined across case finding methods. Nine programs provided data on head circumference and conditions potentially contributing to microcephaly. RESULTS The pooled prevalence of microcephaly was 8.7 per 10,000 live births. Median prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was similar among programs using active (6.7) and passive (6.6) methods; the interdecile range of prevalence estimates was wider among programs using passive methods for all race/ethnicity categories except Hispanic. Prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was lowest among non-Hispanic Whites (6.5) and highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics (11.2 and 11.9, respectively); estimates followed a U-shaped distribution by maternal age with the highest prevalence among mothers <20 years (11.5) and ≥40 years (13.2). For gestational age and birth weight, the highest prevalence was among infants <32 weeks gestation and infants <1500 gm. Case definitions varied; 41.8% of cases had an HC ≥ the 10th percentile for sex and gestational age. CONCLUSION Differences in methods, population distribution of maternal/infant characteristics, and case definitions for microcephaly can contribute to the wide range of observed prevalence estimates across individual birth defects surveillance programs. Addressing these factors in the setting of Zika virus infection can improve the quality of prevalence estimates. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:972-982, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology
Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology 医药科学, 胎儿发育与产前诊断, 生殖系统/围生医学/新生儿
CiteScore
1.86
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Cover Image Corrigendum for: Levels of folate receptor autoantibodies in maternal and cord blood and risk of neural tube defects in a Chinese population, 106:685–695 (10.1002/bdra.23517) Acardiac twin pregnancies part III: Model simulations. Diprosopus: Systematic review and report of two cases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1