Book contents
- Fetal Therapy
- Fetal Therapy
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Section 1: General Principles
- Section 2: Fetal Disease: Pathogenesis and Treatment
- Section III: The Future
- Chapter 53 Fetal Therapy and Translational Studies: Global Alignment, Coordination, and Collaboration in Perinatal Research – the Global Obstetrics Network (GONet) Initiative
- Chapter 54 Congenital Anomaly Registers: The European Experience
- Chapter 55 A Challenge for Prenatal Diagnosis in Developing Countries: Zika Virus as an Exemplar
- Index
- References
Chapter 54 - Congenital Anomaly Registers: The European Experience
from Section III: - The Future
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2019
Book contents
- Fetal Therapy
- Fetal Therapy
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Section 1: General Principles
- Section 2: Fetal Disease: Pathogenesis and Treatment
- Section III: The Future
- Chapter 53 Fetal Therapy and Translational Studies: Global Alignment, Coordination, and Collaboration in Perinatal Research – the Global Obstetrics Network (GONet) Initiative
- Chapter 54 Congenital Anomaly Registers: The European Experience
- Chapter 55 A Challenge for Prenatal Diagnosis in Developing Countries: Zika Virus as an Exemplar
- Index
- References
Summary
The importance of the accurate recording and monitoring of the occurrence of disease is well recognized. There is a long history of the establishment of disease registers and this is also the case for congenital anomaly registers. This chapter provides an overview of 2 congenital anomaly register networks, focusing on factors that lead to the successful operating of a register and the main uses of their data.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Fetal TherapyScientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits, pp. 570 - 579Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
EUROCAT (2016). EUROCAT Guide 1.4. www.eurocat-network.eu/aboutus/datacollection/guidelinesforregistration/guide1_4Google Scholar
Newton, J, Garner, S. Disease Registers in England. Oxford: Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford, 2002. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.1990&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle Scholar
Rankin, J, Best, K. Disease registers in England. Paed Child Health. 2012; 24: 337–42.Google Scholar
Boyd, P, Barisic, I, Haeusler, M, et al. Paper 1: The EUROCAT network: organization and processes. Birth Def Res (Part A). 2011; 91: 2–15.Google Scholar
Kinsner-Ovaskainen, A, Lanzoni, M, Garne, E, Loane, M, Morris, J, Neville, A, et al. A sustainable solution for the activities of the European Network for Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies: EUROCAT as part of the EU Platform on Rare Diseases Registration. Eur J Med Genet. 2018; 61: 513–17.Google Scholar
Lanzoni, M, Morris, J, Garne, E, et al. European Monitoring of Congenital Anomalies: JRC-EUROCAT Report on Statistical Monitoring of Congenital Anomalies (2006–2015). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017.Google Scholar
EUROCAT (2018). Publications. www.eurocat-network.eu/aboutus/publications/publicationsGoogle Scholar
Misra, T, Dattani, N, Majeed, A. Evaluation of the national congenital anomaly system in England and Wales. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonat Ed. 2005; 90: F368–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knox, EG, Armstrong, EH, Lancashire, R. The quality of notification of congenital malformations. J Epid Comm Health. 1984; 38: 296–305.Google Scholar
Boyd, PA, Armstrong, B, Dolk, H, et al. Congenital anomaly surveillance in England – ascertainment deficiencies in the national system. BMJ. 2005; 330: 27–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Springett, A, Budd, J, Draper, ES, et al. Congenital Anomaly Statistics 2012: England and Wales. London: British Isles Network of Congenital Anomaly Registers, 2014.Google Scholar
Morris, JK, Springett, A. The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register for England and Wales 2013 Annual Report. London: Queen Mary University of London, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, 2014.Google Scholar
The Royal College of Surgeons (2017). CRANE Database Annual Report of Cleft Lip and/or Palate 2017. www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/.../2017/crane-annual-report-2017-v11.pdfGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (2013). The UK Strategy for Rare Diseases. www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/.../2017/crane-annual-report-2017-v11.pdfGoogle Scholar
Public Health England (2017). National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service: Congenital Anomaly Statistics 2015. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716574/Congenital_anomaly_statistics_2015_v2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S, Miller, N, Rashbass, J. Development and progress with the National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonat Ed. 2018; 103: 215–18.Google Scholar
Rankin, J, Pattenden, S, Abramsky, L, et al. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in five British regions, 1991-99. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonat Ed. 2005; 90: 374–9.Google Scholar
Morris, JK, Springett, AL, Greenlees, R, et al. Trends in congenital anomalies in Europe from 1980 to 2012. PLOS One. 2018; 13: e0194986.Google Scholar
Dolk, H, Loane, M, Garne, E, et al. Congenital heart defects in Europe: prevalence and perinatal mortality, 2000 to 2005. Circulation. 2011; 123: 841–9.Google Scholar
Rankin, J, Dillon, E, Wright, C. Congenital anterior abdominal wall defects in the North of England, 1986–1996: Occurrence and outcome. Prenat Diag. 1999; 19: 662–8.3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillingham, A, Rankin, J. Prevalence, prenatal diagnosis and survival of gastroschisis. Prenat Diag. 2008; 28: 1232–7.Google Scholar
EUROCAT (2012). Special Report: Congenital anomalies are a major group of mainly rare diseases. www.eurocat-network.eu/content/Special-Report-Major-Group-of-Mainly-Rare-Diseases.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wellesley, D, Dolk, H, Boyd, PA, et al. Rare chromosome abnormalities, prevalence and prenatal diagnosis rates from population-based congenital anomaly registers in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012; 20: 521–6.Google Scholar
Barisic, I, Boban, L, Greenlees, R, et al. Holt Oram syndrome: a registry-based study in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014; 9: 156.Google Scholar
Barisic, I, Boban, L, Loane, M, et al. Meckel-Gruber syndrome: a population-based study on prevalence, prenatal diagnosis, clinical features, and survival in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015; 23: 746–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barisic, I, Odak, L, Loane, M, et al. Prevalence, prenatal diagnosis and clinical features of oculo-auriculo-vertebral spectrum: a registry-based study in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014; 22: 1026–33.Google Scholar
Barisic, I, Odak, L, Loane, M, et al. Fraser syndrome: epidemiological study in a European population. Am J Med Genet. 2013; 161A: 1012–18.Google Scholar
Boyd, PA, Tonks, A, Rankin, J, et al. Monitoring the prenatal detection of structural fetal congenital anomalies in England and Wales: register-based study. J Med Screen. 2011; 18: 2–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonks, A, Miller, N, Broughan, J, et al. Do detection rates for auditable conditions meet the NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme (FASP) targets? Using data from the National Congenital and Rare Disease Registration Service (NCARDRS). BJOG. 2018; 125: 24.Google Scholar
Tennant, PWG, Pearce, MS, Bythell, M, et al. 20-year survival of children born with congenital anomalies: a population-based study. Lancet. 2010; 375; 649–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rankin, J, Tennant, PWG, Bythell, M, et al. Predictors of survival in children born with Down syndrome: a registry based study. Pediatrics. 2012; 129: e1373–81.Google Scholar