The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Population-Based Study of the Risk of Recurrence of Birth Defects
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Certain birth defects are known to recur in families, but most estimates of the risk of recurrence have come from clinic-based studies. In this study we estimated the risk of recurrent birth defects using a population-based registry. METHODS: The study was based on the records of the first and second infants delivered by 371,933 women from 1967 through 1989. The records are maintained by the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. For the 9192 women whose first infant had a birth defect, we determined the relative risk of similar and dissimilar defects in the second infant. The reference population was women whose first infant had no defect. RESULTS: Among first infants, 2.5 percent had a birth defect. The mothers of affected first infants were 2.4 times as likely as other women to have second infants with any registered defect. This increased risk was due primarily to an increased (7.6 times higher) risk of the same defect in the second infant as in the first (95 percent confidence interval, 6.5 to 8.8) and secondarily to a slightly increased (1.5 times higher) risk of a different defect in the second infant (95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 1.7). Among the women who lived in the same municipality during both pregnancies, the relative risk of having a second infant with the same defect was 11.6, as compared with 5.1 among the women who moved to another municipality after the birth of their first infant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among women whose first infant has a birth defect, the risk of the same defect in the second infant is substantially increased and the risk of a different defect in the second infant is slightly increased. Environment plays a strong part in repeated defects.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Hernan, M. A. (2002) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/155.2.176 · Cited by 1,445
Risk of Alzheimer's disease and duration of NSAID use
Stewart, W. F., Kawas, C., Corrada, M., & Metter, E. J. (1997) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.48.3.626 · Cited by 1,132
Tennis, P., & Stern, R. S. (1997) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.49.2.542 · Cited by 261
Bain, P. G., Motomura, M., Newsom-Davis, J., Misbah, S. A., Chapel, H. M., Lee, M. L., Vincent, A., & Lang, B. (1996) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.47.3.678 · Cited by 261
Metadata
- Authors
- Lie, R. T., Wilcox, A. J., & Skjaerven, R.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1994-07-07
- Volume
- 331
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-4
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2340361451
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.88
- 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: A Population-Based Study of the Risk of Recurrence of Birth Defects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199407073310101
- The paper
- Lie, R. T., Wilcox, A. J., & Skjaerven, R. (1994). A Population-Based Study of the Risk of Recurrence of Birth Defects. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199407073310101
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.