CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 114Coffee research and impactsPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsCleft Lip and Palate Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Selected Birth Defects in Relation to Caffeine-Containing Beverages

Rosenberg, Lynn·1982·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
DOI 10.1001/jama.1982.03320350033024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In a case-control study of 2,030 malformed infants, six selected birth defects were evaluated in relation to maternal ingestion, during pregnancy, of caffeine from tea, coffee, and cola: 380 infants with inguinal hernia, 299 with cleft lip with or without cleft palate, 277 with cardiac defects, 194 with pyloric stenosis, 120 with isolated cleft palate, and 101 with neural tube fusion defects were compared with 712 other malformed infants who served as controls. None of the point estimates of relative risk was significantly greater than unity. For ingestion of any caffeine relative to no ingestion, the upper 95% confidence bounds were of the order of three or less; for consumption of the equivalent of four or more cups of coffee per day relative to less than two cups, the upper bounds were two or less. Potential confounding factors did not explain the findings. The results suggest that caffeine is not a major teratogen with regard to the six defects evaluated. (JAMA1982;247:1429-1432)

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1982.03320350033024

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a study of 2,030 malformed infants, the risk of congenital anomalies was not related to the total maternal daily caffeine ingestion below 400 mg/day during pregnancy.

    “In another study of 2,030 malformed infants, the risk of congenital anomalies was not related to the total maternal daily caffeine ingestion below 400 mg/day (or up to 4 cups of coffee) during pregnancy (134).”

    From The Safety of Ingested Caffeine: A Comprehensive Review (2017) · cites this paper as [134]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Rosenberg, L.
Corresponding author
Rosenberg, Lynn
ORCID
Rosenberg, Lynn
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1982-03-12
Volume
247
Issue
10
Pages
1429
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1982.03320350033024
OpenAlex
W1973484846
Cited by
114
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Coffee research and impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
Keywords
caffeine, congenital malformations, teratogenicity, maternal caffeine intake, pregnancy, inguinal hernia, cleft lip and palate, congenital heart disease, pyloric stenosis, neural tube defects, coffee consumption, tea, cola
MeSH terms
Abnormalities, Drug-Induced, Beverages, Caffeine, Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, Clinical Trials as Topic, Coffee, Female, Heart Defects, Congenital, Hernia, Inguinal, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Maternal-Fetal Exchange, Neural Tube Defects, Pregnancy, Pyloric Stenosis, Risk, Tea

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review