Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 15, No. 6, 2000
Issue release date: November–December 2000
Fetal Diagn Ther 2000;15:348–354

Frequency of Prenatal Diagnosis of Birth Defects in Houston, Galveston and the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas 1995

Waller D.K. · Pujazon M.A. · Canfield M.A. · Scheuerle A.E. · Byrne J.L.B.
aUniversity of Texas Houston Health Science Center, School of Public Health, Houston, Tex., bTexas Birth Defects Monitoring Division, Bureau of Epidemiology, Texas Department of Health, Austin, Tex., and cBaylor College of Medicine, Baylor Perinatal Associates, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Houston, Tex., USA

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Background: Estimates of the proportion of birth defects diagnosed before birth exist for only a few types of birth defects and for a few geographic regions in the United States. This population-based study examines rates of prenatal diagnosis for previously unstudied birth defects in a new geographic region. Methods: Active surveillance of 23 categories of birth defects among 111,902 infants born in 77 birthing hospitals in Texas in 1995 identified 852 infants or fetuses with major birth defects. Surveillance was conducted by the Texas Birth Defects Monitoring Program of the Texas Department of Health. Two regions were covered, the Houston/Galveston metropolitan area as well as the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Rates of prenatal diagnosis were evaluated for 23 different types of birth defects, using proportions and 95% confidence intervals. Results: One third of the 852 infants or fetuses with birth defects were prenatally diagnosed. Diagnosis rates varied greatly depending on the type of birth defects and were lower among infants born to Black and Hispanic women. More than 60% of anencephaly, encephalocele, gastroschisis and trisomies 13 and 18 were diagnosed antenatally. Many of the fetuses that were electively terminated had birth defects or combinations of birth defects that were potentially lethal. Prevalence rates for birth defects generally do not include fetuses that die or are electively terminated before 20 weeks of gestation. Thus, 36% of anencephaly, 21% of omphalocele, 15% of encephalocele and between 7 and 10% of spina bifida, hydrocephaly, renal agenesis, and trisomies 13, 18, and 21 were not included in our published rates. Conclusions: Published rates for specific types of birth defects are spuriously low. This should be considered when investigating alleged clusters and comparing rates of birth defects across geographic areas. Since many elective abortions are for lethal or potentially lethal birth defects, a major effect of prenatal diagnosis is the resultant decrease in infant mortality attributable to birth defects.

Copyright © 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Press N, Browner CH: Characteristics of women who refuse an offer of prenatal diagnosis: Data from the California maternal serum alpha fetoprotein blood test experience. Am J Med Genet 1998;78:433–445.
  2. Levi S, Schaaps JP, DeHavey P, Coulon R, Defoort P: End-result of routine ultrasound screening for congenital anomalies: The Belgian Multicentric Study 1984–92. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:366–371.

    External Resources

  3. Texas Department of Health: An Investigation of a Cluster of Neural Tube Defects in Cameron County, Texas (report). Austin, Texas Department of Health, 1992.
  4. Brender JD, Suarez L, Henry J: Anencephaly in Texas border counties 1986–91. Border Epidemiol Bull 1992;19:8–16.
  5. Texas Birth Defects Monitoring Division: Texas Birth Defects Registry Report of Birth Defects among 1995 Deliveries. Austin, Texas Department of Health, 1995.
  6. Seeds JW, Chescheir NC, Wade RV: Practical Sonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Philadelphia, Lippincott Raven, 1996.
  7. Dean AG, Dean JA, Coulombies D, Brendel KA, Smith DC, Burton AH, et al: EPI Info, Version 6: A Word Processing and Statistics Program for Epidemiology on Microcomputers. Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1994.
  8. Chitty LS: Ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 1995;15:1241–1257.
  9. Luck C: Value of routine ultrasound scanning at 19 weeks: A four year study of 8,849 deliveries. Br Med J 1992;304:1474–1478.
  10. Texas Vital Statistics. Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1995, pp 56–65.
  11. Kuppermann M, Gates E, Washington AE: Racial-ethnic differences in prenatal diagnostic test use and outcomes: Preferences, socioeconomics, or patient knowledge? Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:675–682.
  12. Velie EM, Shaw GM: Impact of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on prevalence and risk estimates of neural tube defects in California, 1989–1991. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:473–479.
  13. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Surveillance for anencephaly and spina bifida and the impact of prenatal diagnosis – United States, 1985–1994; in: CDC Surveillance Summaries, August 25, 1995. MMWR 1995;44:1–13.
  14. Bishop J, Huether CA, Torfs C, Lorey F, Deddens J: Epidemiologic study of Down syndrome in a racially diverse California population, 1989–1991. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:134–137.
  15. Olsen CL, Cross PK, Gensburg LJ, Hughes JP: The effects of prenatal diagnosis, population aging, and changing fertility rates on the live birth prevalence of Down syndrome in New York State, 1983–1992. Prenat Diagn 1996;16:991–1002.
  16. Forrester MB, Merz RD, Yoon PW: Impact of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on the prevalence of selected birth defects in Hawaii. Am J Epidemiol 1998;148:1206–1211.
  17. Forrester MB, Merz RD: Impact of demographic factors on prenatal diagnosis and elective termination because of abdominal wall defects, Hawaii 1986–1997. Fetal Diagn Ther 1999;14:206–211.
  18. Lin AE, Herring AH, Amstutz KS, Westgate MN, Lacro RV, Al-Jufan M, Ryan L, Holmes LB: Cardiovascular malformations: Changes in prevalence and birth status, 1972–1990. Am J Med Genet 1999;84:102–110.
  19. Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, LeFevre ML, Bain RP, McNellis D: Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on prenatal outcome. N Engl J Med 1994;329:821–827.
  20. Ultrasound in Pregnancy: Am Coll Obstet Gynecol Tech Bull 1988;Mai:116.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50