Maternal caffeine intake and risk of selected birth defects in the national birth defects prevention study
Birth Defects Research Part A - Clinical and Molecular Teratology, ISSN: 1542-0752, Vol: 91, Issue: 2, Page: 93-101
2011
- 44Citations
- 58Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations44
- Citation Indexes43
- 43
- CrossRef32
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures58
- Readers58
- 57
Article Description
Caffeine intake is common during pregnancy, yet few epidemiologic studies have examined the association between maternal caffeine consumption and birth defects. Using data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS), we examined the association between maternal caffeine consumption and anotia/microtia, esophageal atresia, small intestinal atresia, craniosynostosis, diaphragmatic hernia, omphalocele, and gastroschisis. Methods: The NBDPS is a multi-site population-based case-control study. The present analysis included 3,346 case infants and 6,642 control infants born from October 1997 through December 2005. Maternal telephone interview reports of demographic characteristics and conditions and exposures before and during pregnancy were collected. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for relevant covariates, were calculated to estimate the associations between maternal dietary caffeine intake (coffee, tea, soda, and chocolate) and maternal use of caffeine-containing medications and each defect. Results: We observed small, statistically significant elevations in adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.3 to 1.8 for total maternal dietary caffeine intake or specific types of caffeinated beverages and anotia/microtia, esophageal atresia, small intestinal atresia, and craniosynostosis; however, dose-response patterns were absent. Periconceptional use of caffeine-containing medications was infrequent and estimates were imprecise. Conclusions: We did not find convincing evidence of an association between maternal caffeine intake and the birth defects included in this study. The increasing popularity of caffeine-containing energy drinks and other caffeinated products may result in higher caffeine intake among women of childbearing age. Future studies should consider more detailed evaluation of such products. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know