Abstract
To assess the quality and appropriateness of Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (CCASS), a system based on routine hospital admission/separation records, we compared the congenital anomalies ascertained by CCASS for the period of January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1993 in the province of Alberta with corresponding figures obtained from Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (ACASS), a specific-purpose surveillance program collecting information on congenital anomalies from multiple sources with mechanisms to evaluate diagnosis. Rates of congenital anomalies estimated by CCASS tended to be higher. Agreement between CCASS and ACASS depended on diagnosis: for the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Monitoring System standard categories of congenital anomalies (except for anomalies of abdominal wall), agreement usually exceeded 50%; for less clear-cut diagnoses, it was well below 50%. We conclude that routine medical records can be used for surveillance purposes for major congenital anomalies with clear-cut diagnosis.
Résumé
Pour évaluer la qualité et l’utilité du Système canadien de surveillance des anomalies congénitales (SCSAC) qui se sert des dossiers d’admission et de sortie des hôpitaux, nous avons fait une comparaison entre les anomalies congénitales constatées par le SCSAC entre le 1er janvier 1990 et le 31 décembre 1993 dans la province de l’Alberta et les statistiques correspondantes fournies par le système albertain de surveillance des anomélies congénitales, un programme de surveillance ciblé qui recueille des données sur les anomélies congénitales provenant de sources multiples avec des mécanismes pour évaluer le diagnostique. Les estimations des taux d’anomalies congénitales selon le SCSAC ont eu tendance à être plus élevées. La concordance entre les données du SCSAC et celles du système albertain dépendaient du diagnostique; pour les catégories standard d’anomalies congénitales (sauf celles de la paroi abdominale) de l’Organisation internationale des systèmes pour la monitorisation des défauts congénitaux, la concordance était en général supérieure à 50 %; pour les diagnostiques moins évidents, elle était bien inférieure à 50 %. Nous en concluons que les dossiers médicaux peuvent servir à la surveillance des grandes anomalies congénitales dans les cas de diagnostique clair et net.
References
- 1.Castillo E, Czeizel A, Kallen B, et al. Methodology for birth defects monitoring. White Plains: March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation; 1986. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Erickson JD. Introduction: Birth defects surveillance in the United States. Teratology. 1997;56:1–4. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9926(199707/08)56:1/2<1::AID-TERA1>3.0.CO;2-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sherman GJ. The Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System: A brief description. Chron Dis Can. 1982;2:48–50. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sherman GJ. The Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (CCASS): Four years later. Chron Dis Can. 1986;6:76–77. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sherman GJ. The Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System. Chron Dis Can. 1988;8:58–60. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Rouleau J, Arbuckle TE, Johnson KC, Sherman GJ. Description and limitations of the Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (CCASS) Chron Dis Can. 1995;16:37–42. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lowry RB, Thunem NY, Anderson-Redick S. Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System. CMAJ. 1989;141:1155–59. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kramer MS. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hook EB, Regal RR. Capture-recapture methods in epidemiology: Methods and limitations. Epidemiol Rev. 1995;17:243–64. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Statistics Canada: Births and deaths, 1994. Catalogue No. 84-210-XPB.
- 11.Lowry RB, Anderson-Redick SK. Report from the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System. Bulletin of the Hereditary Diseases Program of Alberta. 1992;11:13–16. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Watkins ML, Edmonds L, McClearn A, et al. The surveillance of birth defects: The usefulness of the revised US standard birth certificate. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:731–34. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.86.5.731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ericson A, Kallen B, Winberg J. Surveillance of malformations at birth: A comparison of two record systems run in parallel. Int J Epidemiol. 1977;6:35–41. doi: 10.1093/ije/6.1.35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.EUROCAT Working Group. Prevalence of neural tube defects in 20 regions of Europe and the impact of prenatal diagnosis, 1980–1986. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1991;45:52–58. doi: 10.1136/jech.45.1.52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Cragan JD, Roberts HE, Edmonds LD, et al. Surveillance for anencephaly and spina bifida and the impact of prenatal diagnosis — United States, 1985–1994. MMWR. 1995;44(Suppl4):1–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Canadian guidelines for prenatal diagnosis of genetic disorders: An update. J SOGC. 1993;March(suppl):17–39. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Periodic health examination, 1994 update: 3. Primary and secondary prevention of neural tube defects. CMAJ. 1994;152:1159–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dick PT with the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 1. Prenatal screening for and diagnosis of Down syndrome. CMAJ. 1996;154:465–79. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]