3.8 Article

Risk Factors for the Occurrence of Spina Bifida (a Case-Control Study) and the Prevalence Rate of Spina Bifida in Japan

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bdra.23179

关键词

folic acid; spina bifida; risk factors; prevalence; supplements; case-control study

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan [H23 Nanchi-Ippan 050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDThe Japanese government recommended in 2000 that women planning pregnancy should take 400 g of folic acid daily to decrease the risk of having an infant with spina bifida. We aimed to identify risk factors for the occurrence of spina bifida and to evaluate how the prevalence rate has altered over the past 3 decades. METHODSSubjects comprised 360 women who gave birth to spina bifida-affected offspring and 2333 women who gave birth to offspring without spina bifida between 2001 and 2012. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data, which were analyzed by multiple logistic regression models. The prevalence rate of spina bifida was obtained through data provided by international and domestic organizations. RESULTSFour variables were significantly associated with the increased risk of having newborns afflicted with spina bifida: not taking folic acid supplements (odds ratios [OR], 2.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-3.64), presence of spina bifida patients within third-degree relatives (OR, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.12-16.19), taking anti-epileptic drugs without folic acid (OR, 2020; 95% CI, 2.06-198.17), and low birth weight in the newborns 2500 g (OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 3.18-5.59). The prevalence rate of spina bifida has remained 5 to 6 per 10,000 total births and has not shown any decreasing trend over the past 11 years. CONCLUSIONFour risk factors were identified among Japanese women. Because recommendations and information have not decreased the occurrence of spina bifida, the Japanese government should implement mandatory food fortification. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据