Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies

L. M. Snell, B. B. Little, K. A. Knoll, W. L. Johnston, C. R. Rosenfeld, N. F. Gant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)219-222
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Perinatology
Volume9
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1992

Fingerprint

Birth Certificates
Teratogens
Information Storage and Retrieval
Public Hospitals
Gestational Age
Medical Records
Epidemiologic Studies
Research Personnel
Parturition
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Snell, L. M., Little, B. B., Knoll, K. A., Johnston, W. L., Rosenfeld, C. R., & Gant, N. F. (1992). Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies. American Journal of Perinatology, 9(3), 219-222.

Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies. / Snell, L. M.; Little, B. B.; Knoll, K. A.; Johnston, W. L.; Rosenfeld, C. R.; Gant, N. F.

In: American Journal of Perinatology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1992, p. 219-222.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Snell, LM, Little, BB, Knoll, KA, Johnston, WL, Rosenfeld, CR & Gant, NF 1992, 'Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies', American Journal of Perinatology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 219-222.
Snell LM, Little BB, Knoll KA, Johnston WL, Rosenfeld CR, Gant NF. Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies. American Journal of Perinatology. 1992;9(3):219-222.
Snell, L. M. ; Little, B. B. ; Knoll, K. A. ; Johnston, W. L. ; Rosenfeld, C. R. ; Gant, N. F. / Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies. In: American Journal of Perinatology. 1992 ; Vol. 9, No. 3. pp. 219-222.
@article{bf25d162d8864351bb3dad4862470e23,
title = "Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Snell, {L. M.} and Little, {B. B.} and Knoll, {K. A.} and Johnston, {W. L.} and Rosenfeld, {C. R.} and Gant, {N. F.}",
year = "1992",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "219--222",
journal = "American Journal of Perinatology",
issn = "0735-1631",
publisher = "Thieme Medical Publishers",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies

AU - Snell, L. M.

AU - Little, B. B.

AU - Knoll, K. A.

AU - Johnston, W. L.

AU - Rosenfeld, C. R.

AU - Gant, N. F.

PY - 1992

Y1 - 1992

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026639765&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026639765&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1575847

AN - SCOPUS:0026639765

VL - 9

SP - 219

EP - 222

JO - American Journal of Perinatology

JF - American Journal of Perinatology

SN - 0735-1631

IS - 3

ER -