Skip to main content
PMC home page
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1996 May;86(5):731–734. doi: 10.2105/ajph.86.5.731

The surveillance of birth defects: the usefulness of the revised US standard birth certificate.

M L Watkins 1, L Edmonds 1, A McClearn 1, L Mullins 1, J Mulinare 1, M Khoury 1
PMCID: PMC1380486  PMID: 8629729

Abstract

To assess the sensitivity and positive predictive value of birth defects reported on the 1989 revision of the US Standard Birth Certificate, a population of 76,862 Atlanta-area births during 1989 and 1990 was used as the basis for comparing 771 birth certificates that reported birth defects with 2428 live-born infant records in a birth defects registry that uses multiple sources of case ascertainment. Only 14% of birth defects in the registry records were reported on birth certificates. After the analysis was restricted to defects recognizable at birth, the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the birth certificates were 28% and 77%, respectively. Birth certificates underestimate birth defect rates and should be used cautiously for birth defect surveillance and epidemiological studies.

Full text

PDF
733

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bintliff S. J., Hernandez D. B. Under-reporting of birth defects in Hawaii: a pilot study. Hawaii Med J. 1978 Jun;37(6):173–175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Buescher P. A., Taylor K. P., Davis M. H., Bowling J. M. The quality of the new birth certificate data: a validation study in North Carolina. Am J Public Health. 1993 Aug;83(8):1163–1165. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.8.1163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Freedman M. A., Gay G. A., Brockert J. E., Potrzebowski P. W., Rothwell C. J. The 1989 revisions of the US Standard Certificates of Live Birth and Death and the US Standard Report of Fetal Death. Am J Public Health. 1988 Feb;78(2):168–172. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.2.168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Frost F., Starzyk P., George S., McLaughlin J. F. Birth complication reporting: the effect of birth certificate design. Am J Public Health. 1984 May;74(5):505–506. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.5.505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gregg J. B., Stanage W. F., Johnson W. Birth certificate data: how reliable? S D J Med. 1984 Nov;37(11):21–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hexter A. C., Harris J. A., Roeper P., Croen L. A., Krueger P., Gant D. Evaluation of the hospital discharge diagnoses index and the birth certificate as sources of information on birth defects. Public Health Rep. 1990 May-Jun;105(3):296–307. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Johnson K. M., Huether C. A., Hook E. B., Crowe C. A., Reeder B. A., Sommer A., McCorquodale M. M., Cross P. K. False-positive reporting of Down syndrome on Ohio and New York birth certificates. Genet Epidemiol. 1985;2(2):123–131. doi: 10.1002/gepi.1370020203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Khoury M. J., Waters G. D., Erickson J. D. Patterns and trends of multiple congenital anomalies in birth defects surveillance systems. Teratology. 1991 Jul;44(1):57–64. doi: 10.1002/tera.1420440110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mackeprang M., Hay S., Lunde A. S. Completeness and accuracy of reporting of malformations on birth certificates. HSMHA Health Rep. 1972 Jan;87(1):43–49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Minton S. D., Seegmiller R. E. An improved system for reporting congenital malformations. JAMA. 1986 Dec 5;256(21):2976–2979. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Piper J. M., Mitchel E. F., Jr, Snowden M., Hall C., Adams M., Taylor P. Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records. Am J Epidemiol. 1993 Apr 1;137(7):758–768. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Snell L. M., Little B. B., Knoll K. A., Johnston W. L., Jr, Rosenfeld C. R., Gant N. F. Reliability of birth certificate reporting of congenital anomalies. Am J Perinatol. 1992 May;9(3):219–222. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-999325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Taffel S. M., Ventura S. J., Gay G. A. Revised U.S. certificate of birth--new opportunities for research on birth outcome. Birth. 1989 Dec;16(4):188–193. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1989.tb00896.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Teperi J., Mäkelä M., Hemminki E. Controlled trial on medical birth notification design. Methods Inf Med. 1991 Apr;30(2):124–126. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Tolson G. C., Barnes J. M., Gay G. A., Kowaleski J. L. The 1989 revision of the U.S. Standard Certificates and Reports. Vital Health Stat 4. 1991 Jun;(28):1–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES