4.0 Article

Birth prevalence of orofacial clefts among perinatal infants: A register-based study in Bao'an district, Shenzhen, China

Journal

BIRTH DEFECTS RESEARCH
Volume 111, Issue 7, Pages 353-359

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bdr2.1467

Keywords

birth prevalence; cleft lip with or without cleft palate; cleft palate only; orofacial clefts; register-based

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The birth prevalence of orofacial clefts (OFCs) has been widely studied, but results are considerable varied, and epidemiological studies in southern China are few in numbers. To address this gap, we carried out a register-based study to estimate the birth prevalence of OFCs in Bao'an district, Shenzhen, China. Methods Data of perinatal infants born between 2003 and 2017 were extracted from Shenzhen Maternal and Child Health Management System. The overall OFCs birth prevalence with 95% confidence interval (CI) as well as subgroup analysis based on selected demographic factors was conducted. Cochran-Armitage trend tests were applied to evaluate the time trend by 5-year intervals. Results The overall birth prevalence of OFCs, cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) and cleft palate only (CPO) was 1.30 (95% CI 1.21-1.39), 1.00 (95% CI 0.92-1.08), and 0.30 (95% CI 0.25-0.34) per 1,000 births, respectively. An overall declining tendency was observed in the OFCs (from 1.83 to 1.04 per 1,000 births), specifically CL/P (from 1.53 to 0.69 per 1,000 births) birth prevalence over 5-year intervals, with statistical significance (p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that the CL/P and CPO birth prevalence was differed by infant gender, household registration, maternal age, and parity. Conclusion Our findings had firstly reported the birth prevalence of OFCs in Bao'an district, and might help other researchers to plan more comprehensive public health strategies to reduce the occurrence of OFCs in further generation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available