The DOI matches its Crossref record.
REPORTING ACCURACY AMONG MOTHERS OF MALFORMED AND NONMALFORMIED INFANTS
Abstract
The potential for recall bias in case-control studies is a common concern. The authors assessed whether recall bias was present in exposure information reported at postpartum interview by mothers of malformed and nonmalformed infants who delivered at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, during 1984. Accuracy of exposure reporting was measured by comparing interview data with exposure information documented during pregnancy in obstetric records. The authors' measure of recall bias, relative sensitivity (RS), is the ratio of exposure-reporting accuracy for mothers of malformed infants to that of mothers of nonmalformed infants. Relative sensitivity estimates that are greater than 1.0 indicate that mothers of malformed infants are more accurate reporters than mothers of nonmalformed infants. Relative sensitivity was estimated for eight exposure factors: antibiotic or antifungal drug use (RS = 1.2), urinary tract or yeast infection (RS = 2.7), history of infertility (RS = 1.4), use of birth control after conception (RS = 7.6), elective abortion history (RS = 1.1), any over-the-counter drug use (RS = 1.0), spotting or bleeding (RS = 1.2), and nausea or vomiting (RS = 0.8) These data suggest the presence of recall bias for some exposure factors. The authors advise the use of malformed controls to reduce potential recall bias in case-control studies of selected malformations and many etiologic factors.
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
Selection of Controls in Case-Control Studies
Wacholder, S., McLaughlin, J. K., Silverman, D. T., & Mandel, J. S. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116396 · Cited by 998
Breslow, N., Olshan, A., Beckwith, J. B., & Green, D. M. (1993) · Medical and Pediatric Oncology · doi:10.1002/mpo.2950210305 · Cited by 549
Selection of Controls in Case-Control Studies: III. Design Options
Wacholder, S., Silverman, D. T., McLaughlin, J. K., & Mandel, J. S. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116398 · Cited by 443
Recall Bias can be a Threat to Retrospective and Prospective Research Designs
(2006) · The Internet Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.5580/2732 · Cited by 441
Schmidt, R. J., Tancredi, D. J., Ozonoff, S., Hansen, R. L., Hartiala, J., Allayee, H., Schmidt, L. C., Tassone, F., & Hertz-Picciotto, I. (2012) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.110.004416 · Cited by 408
Metadata
- Authors
- WERLER, M. M., POBER, B. R., NELSON, K., & HOLMES, L. B.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1989-02
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 415-421
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2131800317
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.35
- 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: REPORTING ACCURACY AMONG MOTHERS OF MALFORMED AND NONMALFORMIED INFANTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115145
- The paper
- WERLER, M. M., POBER, B. R., NELSON, K., & HOLMES, L. B. (1989). REPORTING ACCURACY AMONG MOTHERS OF MALFORMED AND NONMALFORMIED INFANTS. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115145
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.