Skip to main content

Table 1 Case-control and cross-sectional studies reporting on the association of ARM and environmental risk factors

From: Parental risk factors and anorectal malformations: systematic review and meta-analysis

  

Study population

     
   

No. participants

    

Ref.

   First author, year

Country

Cases

Controls

Age range

Setting, control type

Data acquisition (period)

Assessed risk factor(s)

[25]

   Bánhidy, 2010

Hungary

231

38,151

< 19 - > 35

population-based,

no birth defects

data from the Hungarian Case-Control Surveillance

of Congenital Abnormalities (1980-1996)

diabetes

[26]

   Blomberg, 2010¥

Sweden

401

1,049,181

< 20 - ≥45

population-based,

all infants

data from the Swedish

Medical Birth Registries† (1995-2007)

overweight/obesity

[35]

   Herdt-Losavio, 2010

USA

328

3,833

< 20 - ≥35

multistate population-based,

no birth defects

data from the National Birth Defects

Prevention Study (NBDPS) (1997-2003)

occupational hazard

[39]

   van Rooij, 2010

Netherlands

85

650

≥35

hospital-based,

no major birth defects

questionnaire (1996-2008‡)

smoking, alcohol, overweight/obesity,

occupational hazard

[37]

   Miller, 2009

USA

464,

216#

4,940

≤ 19 - ≥35

multistate population-based,

no major birth defects

data from the National Birth Defects

Prevention Study (NBDPS) (1997-2003)

smoking, alcohol, caffeine

[41]

   van Gelder, 2009

USA

456-468

4,967

< 20 - ≥35

multistate population-based,

no major birth defects

data from the National Birth Defects

Prevention Study (NBDPS), collected by

telephone interview (1997-2003)

illicit drugs of mothers

(between one month before pregnancy

and the end of the third month of pregnancy)

[34]

   Correa, 2008

USA

230

200#

4,689

< 20 - ≥35

multistate population-based,

no major birth defects

data from the National Birth Defects

Prevention Study (NBDPS) (1997-2003)

diabetes

[1]

   Forrester, 2007

USA

162

316,346

N.A.

state-wide population-based,

all live births

data from the Hawaii Birth Defects

Program (HBDP), collected through review

of medical records (1986-2002)

illicit drugs of mothers (during

pregnancy and 1 year after delivery)

[32]

   Frías, 2007¥

USA

417Δ,

427ΔΔ

29,722Δ,

30,509ΔΔ

N.A.

hospital-based,

other malformed infants

data from the Spanish Collaborative Study of

Congenital Malformations (ECEMC) (1976-2005)

diabetes

[40]

   Waller, 2007

USA

380,

77#

4,065

< 18 - ≥35

multistate population-based,

no birth defects

data from the National Birth Defects

Prevention Study (NBDPS) (1997-2002)

overweight/obesity

[7]

   Correa, 2003

USA

56,

32#

3,029

< 20 - ≥30

population-based,

no birth defects

data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital

Defects Program (MACDP) (1968-1980)

diabetes

[24]

   Aberg, 2001

Sweden

15

600

N.A.

population-based,

other malformed infants

data from the Swedish

Medical Birth Registries† (1987-1997)

diabetes

[31]

   Honein, 2001

USA

564

6,160,942

< 30 - ≥30

population-based,

all live births

US public-use natality data tapes

(National Vital Statistics System, National

Centre for Health Statistics) (1997-1998)

smoking

[36]

   Martínez-Frías, 1998¥

Spain

227

19,377

N.A.

hospital-based,

other malformed infants

data from the Spanish Collaborative Study of

Congenital Malformations (ECEMC) (1976-1995)

diabetes

[38]

   Stoll, 1997

France

108,

51#

108

F: mean age 26.9,

M: mean age 29.9

hospital-based,

no birth defects

interview (1979-1995)

smoking, alcohol, diabetes,

X-ray examinations

[27]

   Cornel, 1996

Netherlands

52

3,962

≤ 20 - ≥40

population-based,

other malformed infants

data from the Northern Netherlands

(NNL) (1981-1994)

smoking

[29]

   Schnitzer, 1995

USA

70

2,279

F: < 20 - ≥40,

M: < 20 - ≥45

population-based,

no birth defects

data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital

Defects Program (MACDP) (1968-1980)

occupational hazard

[30]

   Yuan, 1995

Japan

84,

49#

174

F: 29.1 ± 4.9,

M: 32.1 ± 5.6

population-based,

no birth defects

data from the Kanangawa Birth Defects

Monitoring Program (KAMP) (1989-1994)

smoking, alcohol

[43]

   Martínez-Frías, 1994¥

Spain

196

18,563

N.A.

hospital-based,

other malformed infants

data from the Spanish Collaborative Study of

Congenital Malformations (ECEMC) (1976-1992)

diabetes

[28]

   Matte, 1993

USA

103

2,403

< 20 - > 35

population-based,

no birth defects

data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital

Defects Program (MACDP) (1968-1980)

occupational hazard

[33]

   Shiono, 1986

USA

14

578

N.A.

population-based,

other malformed infants

data from the Kaiser-Permanente

Birth Defects Study (1974-1977)

smoking

[42]

   Angerpointer, 1981

Germany

78

78

78

78

210*

169**

75***

53****

< 20 - > 40

hospital-based,

other malformed infants

questionnaire (1970-1974)

smoking

  1. # ARM infants with isolated (no additional major defects) anomaly
  2. † The Swedish Medical Birth Registry, the Swedish Register of Birth Defects (previously called the Registry of Congenital Malformations) and the National Patient Register (previously called the Hospital Discharge Registry)
  3. ‡ Difference in case and control period: cases 1996-2008, controls 1996-2004
  4. Δ ARM infants for the examination of maternal pre-gestational diabetes
  5. ΔΔ ARM infants for the examination of maternal gestational diabetes
  6. * Control group includes 41 infants with esophageal atresia, 41 with stenosis/atresia of the small and large bowel, 75 with Hirschsprung's disease, 28 with omphalocele and 25 with gastroschisis
  7. ** Control group includes 41 infants with esophageal atresia, 75 with Hirschsprung's disease, 28 with omphalocele and 25 with gastroschisis
  8. *** Control group includes 75 infants with Hirschsprung's disease
  9. **** Control group includes 28 infants with omphalocele and 25 with gastroschisis
  10. ¥ Cross-sectional study
  11. M = male; F = female; BMI = body mass index; N.A. = not available