A quality assessment of reporting sources for microcephaly in Utah, 2003 to 2013

Birth Defects Research Part A - Clinical and Molecular Teratology

Volumn 106, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 983-988

  Steele, Amy ^a   Johnson, Jane ^a   Nance, Amy ^a   Satterfield, Robert ^a   Alverson, C J ^b   Mai, Cara ^b  

^a UTAH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

Author keywords

birth defects; hospital discharge data; microcephaly; quality assessment; reporting; Utah

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CASE FINDING; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; MICROCEPHALY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTAH; DISEASE NOTIFICATION; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MONITORING; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; MALE; NEWBORN; PREVALENCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ZIKA VIRUS; ZIKA VIRUS INFECTION;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; DISEASE NOTIFICATION; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MONITORING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALE; MICROCEPHALY; PREVALENCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTAH; ZIKA VIRUS; ZIKA VIRUS INFECTION;

EID: 84997107154     PISSN: 15420752     EISSN: 15420760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdra.23593     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Boulet SL, Shin M, Kirby RS, et al. 2011. Sensitivity of birth certificate reports of birth defects in Atlanta, 1995-2005: effects of maternal, infant, and hospital characteristics. Public Health Rep 126:186–194.
2. Callif-Daley FA, Huether CA, Edmonds LD. 1995. Evaluating false positives in two hospital discharge data sets of the Birth Defects Monitoring Program. Public Health Rep 110:154–160.
3. Correa-Villaseñor A, Satten GA, Rolka H, et al. 2003. Random error and undercounting in birth defects surveillance data: implications for inference. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 67:610–616.
4. Feldkamp M, Macleod L, Young L, et al. 2005. The methodology of the Utah Birth Defect Network: congenital heart defects as an illustration. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 73:693–699.
5. Hexter AC, Harris JA. 1991. Bias in congenital malformations information from the birth certificate. Teratology 44:177–180.
6. Li J, Robbins S, Lamm SH. 2013. The influence of misclassification bias on the reported rates of congenital anomalies on the birth certificates for West Virginia--a consequence of an open-ended query. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 97:140–151.
7. Mai CT, Correa A, Kirby RS, et al. 2015. Assessing the practices of population-based birth defects surveillance programs using the CDC Strategic Framework, 2012. Public Health Rep 130:722–730.
8. Tanner JP, Salemi JL, Hauser KW, et al. 2010. Birth defects surveillance in Florida: infant death certificates as a case ascertainment source. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 88:1017–1022.
9. Watkins ML, Edmonds L, McClearn A, et al. 1996. The surveillance of birth defects: the usefulness of the revised US standard birth certificate. Am J Public Health 86:731–734.