4.2 Article

Sex Ratios Among Infants with Birth Defects, National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997-2009

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
Volume 167, Issue 5, Pages 1071-1081

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36865

Keywords

sex ratio; birth defects; race; ethnicity

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [U01/DD00048702]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A small number of population-based studies have examined sex differences among infants with birth defects. This study presents estimates of sex ratio for both isolated cases and those with multiple congenital anomalies, as well as by race/ethnicity. Male-female sex ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for 25,952 clinically reviewed case infants included in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (1997-2009), a large population-based case-control study of birth defects. The highest elevations in sex ratios (i.e., male preponderance) among isolated non-cardiac defects were for craniosynostosis (2.12), cleft lip with cleft palate (2.01), and cleft lip without cleft palate (1.78); the lowest sex ratios (female preponderance) were for choanal atresia (0.45), cloacal exstrophy (0.46), and holoprosencephaly (0.64). Among isolated cardiac defects, the highest sex ratios were for aortic stenosis (2.88), coarctation of the aorta (2.51), and d-transposition of the great arteries (2.34); the lowest were multiple ventricular septal defects (0.52), truncus arteriosus (0.63), and heterotaxia with congenital heart defect (0.64). Differences were observed by race/ethnicity for some but not for most types of birth defects. The sex differences we observed for specific defects, between those with isolated versus multiple defects, as well as by race/ethnicity, demonstrate patterns that may suggest etiology and improve classification. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available