↓ Skip to main content

Adjusting for Bias Due to Incomplete Case Ascertainment in Case-Control Studies of Birth Defects

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Epidemiology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Adjusting for Bias Due to Incomplete Case Ascertainment in Case-Control Studies of Birth Defects
Published in
American Journal of Epidemiology, March 2015
DOI 10.1093/aje/kwu323
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Case-control studies of birth defects might be subject to selection bias when there is incomplete ascertainment of cases among pregnancies that are terminated after a prenatal diagnosis of the defect. We propose a simple method to estimate inverse probability of selection weights (IPSWs) for cases ascertained from both pregnancies that end in termination and those that do not end in termination using data directly available from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study and other published information. The IPSWs can then be used to adjust for selection bias analytically. We can also allow for uncertainty in the selection probabilities through probabilistic bias analysis. We provide an illustrative example using data from National Birth Defects Prevention Study (1997-2009) to examine the association between prepregnancy obesity (body mass index, measured as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, of ≥30 vs. <30) and spina bifida. The unadjusted odds ratio for the association between prepregnancy obesity and spina bifida was 1.48 (95% confidence interval: 1.26, 1.73), and the simple selection bias-adjusted odds ratio was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.04, 1.53). The probabilistic bias analysis resulted in a median adjusted odds ratio of 1.22 (95% simulation interval: 0.97, 1.47). The proposed method provides a quantitative estimate of the IPSWs and the bias introduced by incomplete ascertainment of cases among terminated pregnancies conditional on a set of assumptions.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Mathematics 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2024.
All research outputs
#4,960,716
of 33,738,238 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Epidemiology
#3,178
of 10,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,935
of 304,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Epidemiology
#31
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,738,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.