Amanda Eng, Andrea 't Mannetje, Lis Ellison-Loschmann, Barry Borman, Soo Cheng, Deborah A. Lawlor, Jeroen Douwes, Neil Pearce
{"title":"先天性畸形的病例对照研究:研究方法和无反应偏倚评估","authors":"Amanda Eng, Andrea 't Mannetje, Lis Ellison-Loschmann, Barry Borman, Soo Cheng, Deborah A. Lawlor, Jeroen Douwes, Neil Pearce","doi":"10.1002/bdr2.2457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>To describe the methods of a congenital anomalies case–control study conducted in New Zealand, discuss the encountered methodological difficulties, and evaluate the potential for nonresponse bias.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The potential cases (<i>n</i> = 2710) were New Zealand live births in 2007–2009 randomly selected from the New Zealand Congenital Anomalies Registry. The potential controls (<i>n</i> = 2989) included live births identified from the Maternity and Newborn Information System, frequency matched to cases by the child's year of birth and sex. Mothers were invited to complete an interview covering demographic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Response probabilities for case and control mothers were evaluated in relation to maternal age, deprivation, occupation, and ethnicity, available from the Electoral Roll, and inverse probability weights (IPWs) for participation were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) for key demographic and selected risk factors were estimated through unconditional logistic regression, with and without IPW.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 652 (24%) of case mothers and 505 (17%) of control mothers completed the interview. Younger and more deprived mothers were underrepresented among the participants, particularly for controls, resulting in inflated ORs of associations with congenital anomalies for younger age, Māori ethnicity, deprivation, and risk factors under study, such as blue-collar occupations and smoking, indicative of nonresponse bias. Nonresponse bias was minimized through IPW, resulting in ORs and exposure prevalence estimates similar to those based on the prerecruitment sample.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Attaining high participation rates was difficult in this study that was conducted in new mothers, particularly for the controls. The resulting nonresponse bias was minimized through IPW.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9121,"journal":{"name":"Birth Defects Research","volume":"117 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdr2.2457","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Case–Control Study of Congenital Anomalies: Study Methods and Nonresponse Bias Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Eng, Andrea 't Mannetje, Lis Ellison-Loschmann, Barry Borman, Soo Cheng, Deborah A. Lawlor, Jeroen Douwes, Neil Pearce\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdr2.2457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>To describe the methods of a congenital anomalies case–control study conducted in New Zealand, discuss the encountered methodological difficulties, and evaluate the potential for nonresponse bias.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The potential cases (<i>n</i> = 2710) were New Zealand live births in 2007–2009 randomly selected from the New Zealand Congenital Anomalies Registry. The potential controls (<i>n</i> = 2989) included live births identified from the Maternity and Newborn Information System, frequency matched to cases by the child's year of birth and sex. Mothers were invited to complete an interview covering demographic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Response probabilities for case and control mothers were evaluated in relation to maternal age, deprivation, occupation, and ethnicity, available from the Electoral Roll, and inverse probability weights (IPWs) for participation were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) for key demographic and selected risk factors were estimated through unconditional logistic regression, with and without IPW.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 652 (24%) of case mothers and 505 (17%) of control mothers completed the interview. Younger and more deprived mothers were underrepresented among the participants, particularly for controls, resulting in inflated ORs of associations with congenital anomalies for younger age, Māori ethnicity, deprivation, and risk factors under study, such as blue-collar occupations and smoking, indicative of nonresponse bias. Nonresponse bias was minimized through IPW, resulting in ORs and exposure prevalence estimates similar to those based on the prerecruitment sample.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Attaining high participation rates was difficult in this study that was conducted in new mothers, particularly for the controls. The resulting nonresponse bias was minimized through IPW.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Birth Defects Research\",\"volume\":\"117 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdr2.2457\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Birth Defects Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdr2.2457\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth Defects Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdr2.2457","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Case–Control Study of Congenital Anomalies: Study Methods and Nonresponse Bias Assessment
Background
To describe the methods of a congenital anomalies case–control study conducted in New Zealand, discuss the encountered methodological difficulties, and evaluate the potential for nonresponse bias.
Methods
The potential cases (n = 2710) were New Zealand live births in 2007–2009 randomly selected from the New Zealand Congenital Anomalies Registry. The potential controls (n = 2989) included live births identified from the Maternity and Newborn Information System, frequency matched to cases by the child's year of birth and sex. Mothers were invited to complete an interview covering demographic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Response probabilities for case and control mothers were evaluated in relation to maternal age, deprivation, occupation, and ethnicity, available from the Electoral Roll, and inverse probability weights (IPWs) for participation were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) for key demographic and selected risk factors were estimated through unconditional logistic regression, with and without IPW.
Results
A total of 652 (24%) of case mothers and 505 (17%) of control mothers completed the interview. Younger and more deprived mothers were underrepresented among the participants, particularly for controls, resulting in inflated ORs of associations with congenital anomalies for younger age, Māori ethnicity, deprivation, and risk factors under study, such as blue-collar occupations and smoking, indicative of nonresponse bias. Nonresponse bias was minimized through IPW, resulting in ORs and exposure prevalence estimates similar to those based on the prerecruitment sample.
Conclusions
Attaining high participation rates was difficult in this study that was conducted in new mothers, particularly for the controls. The resulting nonresponse bias was minimized through IPW.
期刊介绍:
The journal Birth Defects Research publishes original research and reviews in areas related to the etiology of adverse developmental and reproductive outcome. In particular the journal is devoted to the publication of original scientific research that contributes to the understanding of the biology of embryonic development and the prenatal causative factors and mechanisms leading to adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely structural and functional birth defects, pregnancy loss, postnatal functional defects in the human population, and to the identification of prenatal factors and biological mechanisms that reduce these risks.
Adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes may have genetic, environmental, nutritional or epigenetic causes. Accordingly, the journal Birth Defects Research takes an integrated, multidisciplinary approach in its organization and publication strategy. The journal Birth Defects Research contains separate sections for clinical and molecular teratology, developmental and reproductive toxicology, and reviews in developmental biology to acknowledge and accommodate the integrative nature of research in this field. Each section has a dedicated editor who is a leader in his/her field and who has full editorial authority in his/her area.