Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Random error and undercounting in birth defects surveillance data: implications for inference.

Adolfo Correa-Villaseñor1, Glen A Satten, Henry Rolka

  • 1National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. acorrea@cdc.gov

Birth Defects Research. Part A, Clinical and Molecular Teratology
|January 6, 2004
PubMed
Summary

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

DTH: a nonparametric test for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same author

Identifying unmeasured heterogeneity in microbiome data via quantile thresholding (QuanT).

Microbiome·2026
Same author

Ranked Severe Maternal Morbidity Index for Population-Level Surveillance by Mode of Delivery.

Journal of women's health (2002)·2026
Same author

Improving the design of epidemiology studies that use biomonitoring for exposure assessment: a SciPinion panel recommendation.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same author

Estimated Burden of COVID-19 Illnesses, Medical Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the US From October 2022 to September 2024.

JAMA internal medicine·2026
Same author

CAFT: A Compositional Log-Linear Model for Microbiome Data with Zero Cells.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2025

Estimating birth defect rates requires accounting for random error and ascertainment bias. Valid comparisons across regions or time are possible if ascertainment bias is constant, despite challenges in estimating absolute rates.

Area of Science:

  • Epidemiology
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Birth defect surveillance data presents challenges in quantifying uncertainties for rate comparisons.
  • Random error and ascertainment bias impact the estimation and comparison of birth defect rates.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide a framework for quantifying uncertainties in birth defect surveillance data.
  • To address the debate on publishing birth defect rates with confidence intervals for cross-regional and temporal comparisons.

Main Methods:

  • Examined the use of confidence intervals for rate inference, ratios, and differences.
  • Addressed the impact of undercounting (ascertainment bias) on rate estimation and confidence intervals.
  • Explored the validity of rate comparisons when ascertainment bias is constant over time or across regions.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Confidence intervals primarily address random error, not ascertainment bias.
  • Ignoring ascertainment bias can lead to misleading rate estimates and confidence intervals.
  • Constant ascertainment bias allows for valid relative comparisons (ratios/differences) even if absolute rates are problematic.

Conclusions:

  • Variability in birth defect rates may stem from surveillance methods rather than true prevalence changes.
  • Developing standardized surveillance methods can minimize bias and enable accurate assessment of real variations.
  • Comparisons of birth defect rates should be made cautiously, assuming consistent ascertainment across regions and time.