Prevalence of Congenital Anomalies in the Japan Environment and Children's Study.
JECS
Japan Environment and Children’s Study
birth cohort
congenital anomalies
prevalence
Journal
Journal of epidemiology
ISSN: 1349-9092
Titre abrégé: J Epidemiol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9607688
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jul 2019
05 Jul 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
27
9
2018
medline:
12
10
2019
entrez:
26
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aims of the present report were to estimate the prevalence of congenital anomalies (CAs) among infants in Japan using data from the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS) and to evaluate the validity of CA classification within JECS. Data on CAs were collected at delivery and at age 1 month from the medical records of 101,825 infants at 15 regional centers. The analyses focused on 61 CAs, selected on the basis of reported associations with environmental exposure. Prevalence per 10,000 pregnancies (including miscarriages, stillbirths, and live births) was stratified according to four reporting patterns (at delivery, at age 1 month, at either, and at both). To evaluate the accuracy of observed CA prevalence, the medical records of 179 cases from a single JECS regional center underwent independent, retrospective re-evaluation. The prevalence of major CAs in four reporting patterns (at delivery, at age 1 month, at either, and at both) was 2.4, 2.6, 3.5, and 1.4 for myelomeningocele/spina bifida; 4.3, 4.2, 5.3, and 3.2 for cleft palate; 18.1, 17.4, 19.5, and 15.1 for cleft lip with or without cleft palate; 73.4, 100.3, 120.8, and 52.8 for congenital heart disease; and 10.5, 14.1, 15.0, and 9.6 for Down's syndrome, respectively. In the subsample re-evaluation, CA diagnoses were confirmed for 92.7%, 93.3%, 90.5%, and 97.8% of cases in the four reporting patterns (at delivery, at age 1 month, at either, and at both), respectively. The present report generated reliable data concerning the prevalence of major CAs in JECS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aims of the present report were to estimate the prevalence of congenital anomalies (CAs) among infants in Japan using data from the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS) and to evaluate the validity of CA classification within JECS.
METHODS
METHODS
Data on CAs were collected at delivery and at age 1 month from the medical records of 101,825 infants at 15 regional centers. The analyses focused on 61 CAs, selected on the basis of reported associations with environmental exposure. Prevalence per 10,000 pregnancies (including miscarriages, stillbirths, and live births) was stratified according to four reporting patterns (at delivery, at age 1 month, at either, and at both). To evaluate the accuracy of observed CA prevalence, the medical records of 179 cases from a single JECS regional center underwent independent, retrospective re-evaluation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The prevalence of major CAs in four reporting patterns (at delivery, at age 1 month, at either, and at both) was 2.4, 2.6, 3.5, and 1.4 for myelomeningocele/spina bifida; 4.3, 4.2, 5.3, and 3.2 for cleft palate; 18.1, 17.4, 19.5, and 15.1 for cleft lip with or without cleft palate; 73.4, 100.3, 120.8, and 52.8 for congenital heart disease; and 10.5, 14.1, 15.0, and 9.6 for Down's syndrome, respectively. In the subsample re-evaluation, CA diagnoses were confirmed for 92.7%, 93.3%, 90.5%, and 97.8% of cases in the four reporting patterns (at delivery, at age 1 month, at either, and at both), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present report generated reliable data concerning the prevalence of major CAs in JECS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30249945
doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20180014
pmc: PMC6556438
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
247-256Références
World J Pediatr. 2014 Feb;10(1):17-23
pubmed: 24464659
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Dec;197(6):585.e1-7; discussion 683-4, e1-7
pubmed: 18060943
JAMA. 2009 Feb 11;301(6):636-50
pubmed: 19211471
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017 Feb 10;2016:1764-1773
pubmed: 28269935
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010 Apr;88(4):251-5
pubmed: 20213697
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2013 Aug;97(8):509-14
pubmed: 23670871
N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1608-14
pubmed: 11096168
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2014 Nov;100(11):895-904
pubmed: 25399767
Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012 May 22;355(2):208-20
pubmed: 22127307
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010 Dec;88(12):1008-16
pubmed: 20878909
J Pediatr Genet. 2013 Jun;2(2):85-90
pubmed: 27625844
J Epidemiol. 2018 Feb 5;28(2):99-104
pubmed: 29093304
Nat Genet. 2010 Jun;42(6):525-9
pubmed: 20436469
Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2000;11(3):304-17
pubmed: 11021632
Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Feb;99(2):216-22
pubmed: 11814500
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2004 Feb 15;125C(1):4-11
pubmed: 14755428
Environ Health Perspect. 2011 May;119(5):598-606
pubmed: 21131253
Am J Epidemiol. 2016 May 1;183(9):834-41
pubmed: 27045073
J Genet Couns. 2015 Feb;24(1):117-21
pubmed: 25082303
J Epidemiol. 2018 Mar 5;28(3):125-132
pubmed: 29093352
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016 Nov;106(11):963-971
pubmed: 27891778
Pediatr Cardiol. 2014 Apr;35(4):559-68
pubmed: 24452958
Med Pregl. 2003 May-Jun;56(5-6):291-4
pubmed: 14565056
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016 May;101(3):F207-11
pubmed: 26408639
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jan 10;14:25
pubmed: 24410977
Prenat Diagn. 2000 Feb;20(2):149-51
pubmed: 10694688
World J Diabetes. 2012 Dec 15;3(12):196-200
pubmed: 23301121
Reprod Toxicol. 2006 Aug;22(2):214-26
pubmed: 16621443
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Feb 1;179(3):267-81
pubmed: 24243742
J Pediatr. 1999 Mar;134(3):298-303
pubmed: 10064665
Am J Med Genet A. 2005 Sep 1;137A(3):259-62
pubmed: 16096995
Am J Epidemiol. 1977 May;105(5):488-95
pubmed: 871121