1995
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.1995.339
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Major Birth Defects at King Fahd Hofuf Hospital: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Outcome

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
3
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However this increased frequency of congenital anomalies in infants of GDM mothers is in concordance with studies conducted by many other researchers 15 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…However this increased frequency of congenital anomalies in infants of GDM mothers is in concordance with studies conducted by many other researchers 15 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Even though our data showed a steady increase in the frequency of anomalies in women with higher parity, the association was not signifi cant. In contrast to our fi ndings, both advanced maternal age and increasing parity have been implicated in other studies with higher occurrences of birth defects, and this is especially signifi cant in the Arab region where women continue child-bearing until menopause 6,8,15 . A Case-Control study in Saudi Arabia of 30,159 live born infants, found mothers of neonates with chromosomal malformations, were older and of greater parity than control groups 15 .…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 56%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This rate is higher than that reported in studies from many high-income countries, as those reported by EUROCAT (261/10 000 births),11 British Isles Network of Congenital Anomaly Registers (BINOCAR) (206/10 000 births)12 and the Bradford study (305/10 000) 13. This prevalence of CAs is also higher than that previously reported from Saudi Arabia (115 to 257 per 10 000 live births) 14–16. Although some studies report an even higher prevalence, for example, such as an antenatal CA prevalence of 521/10 000 pregnancies screened, and a prevalence among live births of 465/10 000,17 these figures may be overestimates of the true prevalence because of the inclusion of mothers referred from other institutions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 58%