Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,891

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004–2006

Parker, Samantha E., Mai, Cara T., Canfield, Mark A., Rickard, Russel, Wang, Ying, Meyer, Robert E., Anderson, Patrick, Mason, Craig A., Collins, Julianne S., Kirby, Russell S., Correa, Adolfo, for the National Birth Defects Prevention Network·2010·Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Birth Defects Prevention Network collects state‐specific birth defects surveillance data for annual publication of prevalence estimates and collaborative research projects. In 2006, data for 21 birth defects from 1999 through 2001 were presented as national birth prevalence estimates. The purpose of this report was to update these estimates using data from 2004 through 2006. METHODS: Population‐based data from 11 active case‐finding programs, 6 passive case‐finding programs with case confirmation, and 7 passive programs without case confirmation were used in this analysis. Pooled birth prevalence estimates for 21 birth defects, stratified by case ascertainment approach, were calculated. National prevalence estimates, adjusted for maternal race/ethnicity and maternal age (trisomy 13, trisomy 18, and Down syndrome only) were determined using data from 14 programs. The impact of pregnancy outcomes on prevalence estimates was also assessed for five specific defects. RESULTS: National birth defects prevalence estimates ranged from 0.72 per 10,000 live births for common truncus to 14.47 per 10,000 live births for Down syndrome. Stratification by type of surveillance system showed that active programs had a higher prevalence of anencephaly, anophthalmia/microphthalmia, cleft lip with or without cleft palate, reduction defect of upper limbs, and trisomy 18. The birth prevalence of anencephaly, trisomy 13, and trisomy 18 also varied substantially with inclusion of elective terminations. CONCLUSION: Accurate and timely national estimates of the prevalence of birth defects are needed for monitoring trends, assessing prevention efforts, determining service planning, and understanding the burden of disease due to birth defects in the United States. Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bdra.20735

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,891

Metadata

Authors
Parker, S. E., Mai, C. T., Canfield, M. A., Rickard, R., Wang, Y., Meyer, R. E., Anderson, P., Mason, C. A., Collins, J. S., Kirby, R. S., Correa, A., & for the National Birth Defects Prevention Network
Venue
Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09-28
Volume
88
Issue
12
Pages
1008-1016
ISSN
  • 1542-0752 (ISSN-L)
  • 1542-0760
OpenAlex
W1987571337
Cited by
1,891
References
0
FWCI
55.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004–2006. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bdra.20735
The paper
Parker, S. E., Mai, C. T., Canfield, M. A., Rickard, R., Wang, Y., Meyer, R. E., Anderson, P., Mason, C. A., Collins, J. S., Kirby, R. S., Correa, A., & for the National Birth Defects Prevention Network. (2010). Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004–2006. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.20735

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.