A comparison of infants' birth defects self‐reported by mothers with data provided by general practitioners: Data from the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register

Veronique Y. F. Maas; Ellen G. T. Ederveen; Yrea R. J. van Rijt‐Weetink; Petra J. Woestenberg; Jorieke E. H. Bergman; Maartje Conijn

doi:10.1002/bdr2.2276

journal article Open Access Nov 23, 2023

A comparison of infants' birth defects self‐reported by mothers with data provided by general practitioners: Data from the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register

Veronique Y. F. Maas

Ellen G. T. Ederveen

Yrea R. J. van Rijt‐Weetink

Petra J. Woestenberg

Jorieke E. H. Bergman

Maartje Conijn

Birth Defects Research Vol. 116 No. 1 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/bdr2.2276

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundSince the presence of a birth defect is often a primary outcome in drug‐safety studies among pregnant women, researching the validity of data collection methods is imperative. The aim of this study is to compare self‐reported birth defects in infants by mothers with the information provided by general practitioners (GP (singular) or GPs (plural)).MethodsMothers who participated in the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register reported information about possible birth defects of their infants via questionnaires. GPs were approached to provide information on possible birth defects of the same infants. All reported birth defects by mothers and GPs were blindly coded using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD‐10) index and EUROCAT‐classified as either a minor or major birth defect. Differences in reported birth defects between participants and GPs were assessed.ResultsParticipants and GPs (N = 551) reported 67 and 53 birth defects respectively, leading to a total of 120 birth defects among 65 infants. When both the GP and the participant reported a birth defect, 76.9% of these birth defects (N = 60) were coded with an identical ICD‐10 code. Information on the absence of a birth defect and the presence of a major birth defect was identically reported by the GP and the mother in almost all cases (98.2%). Of the major birth defects reported by the GP, 67% could be matched with information provided by the participant, for 33% contradicting information was reported.ConclusionSelf‐reported questionnaire data on infants' birth defects from mothers yield fairly similar information compared to information obtained through GPs. Future studies should validate the accuracy of self‐reported birth defects by mothers more extensively to improve the quality of drug safety studies during pregnancy.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

40

[1]

10.1002/ajmg.c.30313

[2]

10.1177/089443930101900201

[3]

10.1002/bdra.20780

[4]

Callif‐Daley F. A. "Evaluating false positives in two hospital discharge data sets of the Birth Defects Monitoring Program" Public Health Reports (1995)

[5]

Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). (2019).Opleidingsniveau(Educational attainment).https://www.cbs.nl/nl‐nl/nieuws/2019/33/verschil‐levensverwachting‐hoog‐en‐laagopgeleid‐groeit/opleidingsniveau

[6]

Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). (2023a).Geboorte(birth).https://www.cbs.nl/nl‐nl/visualisaties/dashboard‐bevolking/bevolkingsgroei/geboren‐kinderen

[7]

Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). (2023b).StatLine Bevolking; hoogstbehaald onderwijsniveau en onderwijsrichting(Population; highest level of education attainment and educational direction).https://opendata.cbs.nl/#/CBS/nl/dataset/85313NED/table?ts=1699612168447

[8]

10.2165/11536820-000000000-00000

[9]

10.1002/bdra.10107

[10]

10.1542/peds.108.3.728

[11]

10.1002/pds.1573

[12]

10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.031

[13]

European Commission. (2021).EUROCAT data. Prevalence charts and tables.https://eu-rd-platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eurocat/eurocat-data/prevalence_e

[14]

European Commission. (2022).EUROCAT Guide 1.5.https://eu-rd-platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eurocat/data-collection/guidelines-for-data-registration_en

[15]

10.1136/bmj.j2249

[16]

Freedman B. "Reliability of maternal reporting in identifying major congenital malformations" Veterinary and Human Toxicology (2002)

[17]

10.1038/sj.jp.7211382

[18]

10.3174/ajnr.a4696

[19]

10.1002/bdra.20748

[20]

10.1111/bcp.14341

[21]

10.1093/toxsci/kfr088

[22]

Kinsner‐Ovaskainen A. (2020)

[23]

10.1371/journal.pone.0159326

[24]

10.1002/bdr2.1589

[25]

10.1155/2012/796590

[26]

10.1002/bdra.23206

[27]

10.1017/s104795110600103x

[28]

Peristat. (2022).Etniciteit(Etnicity).https://www.peristat.nl/

[29]

10.1093/cid/ciu738

[30]

10.1111/j.1440-1754.2004.00460.x

[31]

10.4103/0250-474x.51941

[32]

Schoellhorn K. J. "Evaluation of passive surveillance for NTD‐affected births in Alaska: A case verification study, birth years 1996‐2007" Journal of Registry Management (2010)

[33]

10.1002/bdra.23150

[34]

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.004

[35]

10.1093/aje/kwq291

[36]

10.2196/jmir.3847

[37]

10.1007/s40264-018-0722-7

[38]

Weir C. B. (2023)

[39]

10.1002/bdra.20356

[40]

10.1136/jamia.2000.0070426

Metrics

2

Citations

40

References

Details

Published: Nov 23, 2023
Vol/Issue: 116(1)
License: View

Authors

V

Veronique Y. F. Maas