A comparison of two surveillance strategies for selected birth defects in Florida

Public Health Reports

Volumn 127, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 391-400

  Salemi, Jason L ^a   Tanner, Jean Paul ^a   Kennedy, Sara ^a   Block, Suzanne ^b   Bailey, Marie ^b   Correia, Jane A ^b   Watkins, Sharon M ^b   Kirby, Russell S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANENCEPHALUS; ARTICLE; BIRTH CERTIFICATE; BIRTH DEFECT; BIRTH WEIGHT; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CLEFT FACE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE REGISTRY; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; DOWN SYNDROME; EDUCATION; EDWARDS SYNDROME; ETHNICITY; FEMALE; FLORIDA BIRTH DEFECTS REGISTRY; GASTROSCHISIS; GENDER; GEOGRAPHY; GESTATIONAL AGE; GOLD STANDARD; HISPANIC; HUMAN; INFANT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MATERNAL AGE; MULTIPARA; NEURAL TUBE DEFECT; OMPHALOCELE; PATAU SYNDROME; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPINA BIFIDA; TRISOMY 13; TRISOMY 18; TRISOMY 21; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84862275234     PISSN: 00333549     EISSN: 14682877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003335491212700407     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Teutsch SM, Churchill RE, editors. Principles and practices of public health surveillance. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
2. Sever LE, editor. Guidelines for conducting birth defects surveillance. Atlanta: National Birth Defects Prevention Network; 2004.
3. Brenner H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H. Estimating completeness of cancer registration in Saarland/Germany with capture-recapture methods. Eur J Cancer 1994;30A:1659-63.
4. Crocetti E, Miccinesi G, Paci E, Zappa M. An application of the twosource capture-recapture method to estimate the completeness of the Tuscany Cancer Registry, Italy. Eur J Cancer Prev 2001;10:417-23.
5. Ballivet S, Salmi LR, Dubourdieu D. Capture-recapture method to determine the best design of a surveillance system. Application to a thyroid cancer registry. Eur J Epidemiol 2000;16:147-53.
6. Greenberg ML, Barr RD, DiMonte B, McLaughlin E, Greenberg C. Childhood cancer registries in Ontario, Canada: lessons learned from a comparison of two registries. Int J Cancer 2003;105:88-91.
7. Schmidtmann I. Estimating completeness in cancer registries-comparing capture-recapture methods in a simulation study. Biom J 2008;50:1077-92.
8. Brenner H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H. Estimating completeness of cancer registration: an empirical evaluation of the two source capture-recapture approach in Germany. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:426-30.
9. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS®: Version 9.2. Cary (NC): SAS Institute, Inc.; 2008.
10. Parker SE, Mai CT, Canfield MA, Richard R, Wang Y, Meyer RE, et al. Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2010;88:1008-16.
11. Tanner JP, Salemi JL, Hauser KW, Correia JA, Watkins SM, Kirby RS. Birth defects surveillance in Florida: infant death certificates as a case ascertainment source. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2010;88:1017-22.
12. Boulet SL, Shin M, Kirby RS, Goodman D, Correa A. Sensitivity of birth certificate reports of birth defects in Atlanta, 1995-2005: effects of maternal, infant, and hospital characteristics. Public Health Rep 2011;126:186-94.
13. Watkins ML, Edmonds L, McClearn A, Mullins L, Mulinare J, Khoury M. The surveillance of birth defects: the usefulness of the revised US standard birth certificate. Am J Public Health 1996;86:731-4.