| 1. |
- Bell, Jane C., et al.
(författare)
-
Survival of infants born with esophageal atresia among 24 international birth defects surveillance programs
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Birth Defects Research. - : Wiley. - 2472-1727. ; 113:12, s. 945-957
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Esophageal atresia (EA) affects around 2.3–2.6 per 10,000 births world-wide. Infants born with this condition require surgical correction soon after birth. Most survival studies of infants with EA are locally or regionally based. We aimed to describe survival across multiple world regions. Methods: We included infants diagnosed with EA between 1980 and 2015 from 24 birth defects surveillance programs that are members of the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research. We calculated survival as the proportion of liveborn infants alive at 1 month, 1- and 5-years, among all infants with EA, those with isolated EA, those with EA and additional anomalies or EA and a chromosomal anomaly or genetic syndrome. We also investigated trends in survival over the decades, 1980s–2010s. Results: We included 6,466 liveborn infants with EA. Survival was 89.4% (95% CI 88.1–90.5) at 1-month, 84.5% (95% CI 83.0–85.9) at 1-year and 82.7% (95% CI 81.2–84.2) at 5-years. One-month survival for infants with isolated EA (97.1%) was higher than for infants with additional anomalies (89.7%) or infants with chromosomal or genetic syndrome diagnoses (57.3%) with little change at 1- and 5-years. Survival at 1 month improved from the 1980s to the 2010s, by 6.5% for infants with isolated EA and by 21.5% for infants with EA and additional anomalies. Conclusions: Almost all infants with isolated EA survived to 5 years. Mortality was higher for infants with EA and an additional anomaly, including chromosomal or genetic syndromes. Survival improved from the 1980s, particularly for those with additional anomalies.
|
|
| 2. |
- MacLennan, Alastair H, et al.
(författare)
-
Genetic or Other Causation Should Not Change the Clinical Diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of child neurology. - : SAGE Publications. - 1708-8283 .- 0883-0738. ; 38:4, s. 472-6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- High throughput sequencing is discovering many likely causative genetic variants in individuals with cerebral palsy. Some investigators have suggested that this changes the clinical diagnosis of cerebral palsy and that these individuals should be removed from this diagnostic category. Cerebral palsy is a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosed on clinical signs, not etiology. All nonprogressive permanent disorders of movement and posture attributed to disturbances that occurred in the developing fetal and infant brain can be described as "cerebral palsy." This definition of cerebral palsy should not be changed, whatever the cause. Reasons include stability, utility and accuracy of cerebral palsy registers, direct access to services, financial and social support specifically offered to families with cerebral palsy, and community understanding of the clinical diagnosis. Other neurodevelopmental disorders, for example, epilepsy, have not changed the diagnosis when genomic causes are found. The clinical diagnosis of cerebral palsy should remain, should prompt appropriate genetic studies and can subsequently be subclassified by etiology.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rubinstein, Yaffa R., et al.
(författare)
-
The case for open science : rare diseases
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JAMIA Open. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2574-2531. ; 3:3, s. 472-486
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The premise of Open Science is that research and medical management will progress faster if data and knowledge are openly shared. The value of Open Science is nowhere more important and appreciated than in the rare disease (RD) community. Research into RDs has been limited by insufficient patient data and resources, a paucity of trained disease experts, and lack of therapeutics, leading to long delays in diagnosis and treatment. These issues can be ameliorated by following the principles and practices of sharing that are intrinsic to Open Science. Here, we describe how the RD community has adopted the core pillars of Open Science, adding new initiatives to promote care and research for RD patients and, ultimately, for all of medicine. We also present recommendations that can advance Open Science more globally.
|
|
