IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0046626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando A Poletta
  • Jorge S López Camelo
  • Juan A Gili
  • Emmanuele Leoncini
  • Eduardo E Castilla
  • Pierpaolo Mastroiacovo

Abstract

Background: Different approaches have been used in case-control studies to estimate maternal exposure to medications and the risk of birth defects. However, the performance of these approaches and how they affect the odds ratio (OR) estimates have not been evaluated using birth-defect surveillance programmes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scope and limitations of three case-control approaches to assess the teratogenic risk of birth defects in mothers exposed to antiepileptic medications, insulin, or acetaminophen. Methodology/Principal Findings: We studied 110,814 non-malformed newborns and 58,514 live newborns with birth defects registered by the Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Anomalies (ECLAMC) between 1967 and 2008. Four controls were randomly selected for each case in the same hospital and period, and three different control groups were used: non-malformed newborns (HEALTHY), malformed newborns (SICK), and a subgroup of SICK, only-exposed cases (OECA). Associations were evaluated using OR and Pearson's chi-square (P

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando A Poletta & Jorge S López Camelo & Juan A Gili & Emmanuele Leoncini & Eduardo E Castilla & Pierpaolo Mastroiacovo, 2012. "Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-11, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0046626
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046626
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046626
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046626&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0046626?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0046626. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.