Talk:Birth defect

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Disability

Birth defect is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Women's Health Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Birth defect.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dmusheye.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creation

Congenital disorder was created by moving congenital here. See talk:congenital and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Congenital -- Wile E. Heresiarch 00:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ethics

I find it entirely unethical and offensive to promote the term "disease" in this context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M--xOyGUX4

I STRONGLY suggest to remove that notion. Thank you. weekeepeer (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

explanation of revision

I thought handling of genetic disorders was confusing and not quite right. E.g., chromosomal disorders are considered genetic defects by most physicians and by the parents of affected children. We shouldn't confuse genetic with inheritable: nearly all inheritable conditions are genetic, but a large proportion of genetic disorders are not inheritable. Not all genetic disorders result from abnormalities of parents' genes; not all inheritable disorders result from abnormalities of the parents' genes. I'd be happy to elaborate or give examples to anyone interested.

I also added a terminology section to explain some of these distinctions. alteripse 14:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of

I'm going to pull out the list to a separate page, List of congenital disorders. --zandperl 01:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --zandperl 01:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

This article claims that neurological defects are the most common of congenital disorders, but in all the research I've done, the sources always say that heart defects are the most common...can the author of this remark please provide the source. I suspect that this may be a regional statistic, rather than a worldwide one. Thanks bcatt 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: one source I have found - which is not worldwide, but is based on a sampling of 5 US States - lists birth defects in this order from most common to least common: heart and circulation, muscles and skeleton, genital and urinary tract, nervous system and eye, chromosomal, club foot, down syndrome, respiratory tract, cleft lip/palate, congenital syphilis, spina bifida, congenital HIV, metabolic disorders, anencephaly, and PKU.) bcatt 22:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the heart/CNS stats are regional differences but rather the ascertainment biases of different methods of collecting such statistics. Most congenital heart disease is recognized in the newborn period and clearly indicated as such on the discharge summaries from which these statistics are derived. On the other hand, CNS problems in the broader sense are less likely to be clearly indicated on the newborn discharge record for several reasons: they are not always apparent in the first days of life; since there is much less likelihood of changing it and such a diagnosis is much more devastating to parents, doctors often do not explicitly describe "a birth defect of the brain" to parents immediately even when they suspect it; many neurological defects may not be captured under that heading even if noted (e.g., Down syndrome, which is certainly a congenital defect of the CNS among other things). alteripse 01:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide links to some sources, please? Thanks. bcatt 06:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "author of this article" so I am not sure where the statistics came from. The textbook source I have closest at hand also lists heart defects as more common than CNS defects (Avery: Neonatology. 4th ed.). However, in practice the ascertainments (how they are found and counted) are so different that it is difficult to compare. Do you have other sources? Go ahead and modify the article, explaining the differences. alteripse 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no list with incidency rates as there is a list with sex ratios of the incidency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.129.115 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

This article needs references. --FloNight ^talk 08:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western bias

There are very acceptable worldwide stats available. We need to use them instead of US stats. FloNight ^talk 08:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great...I am willing to do some work on this if you can point me to the right resources. I have also been searching for good worldwide statistics on other medical topics, primarily congenital heart defects and stillbirth, if you can help with that as well, I would be most grateful. bcatt 09:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we fix this language?

I find that the sentence "The most severe, such as anencephaly, are incompatible with life" is rather awkward. Couldn't it say something a little more straightforward, such as "The most severe, such as anencephaly, are fatal"? BigNate37 08:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language reflects the distinction between a condition causing death of a previously live person and a condition that prevents development of an independently viable person. Change it if you wish but preserve the distinction. alteripse 11:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I can't come up with anything that would be better (I can probably muck it up and complicate it though) so I'll leave it as-is. BigNate37 15:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Length

I've reformatted the page to move some of the length previously contained within the introduction into seperate sections of the document as seemed logical to me. Section titles might still need some updating, and I think more specific information and statistics wouldn't hurt. Phrique 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

The terminology section mentions the word "problem" several times without giving any explanation about that notion. Is it a socially impairing problem ? A physical disability ? An ethical issue ? Please clarify.

In this context a "problem" is a "negatively valued" condition. It may be unwanted by the person who has it, or by those around him. alteripse 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"At Birth"

The introductory pharse, "A congenital disorder is a medical condition that is present at birth." might be improved. Disorders that result from the birth itself are not congenital. For example, a congenital brachial plexus injury - is one that is present before birth itself takes place. As mentioned later in the article the condition may present before birth through investigations. Might it be changed to before birth! --Jezmhill 12:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that. Let's change it. I Love Cookies 21:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Disturbing

What's the most disturbing congenital disorder? Does anyone have an opinion on this? TheMan12345 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think two of the most disturbing are cyclopia and diprosopus. But its really all a matter of opinion, and it would be POV to put the "most disturbing" disorder on a page. Interesting question, though. I Love Cookies 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Hip dysplasia (human) ??

This should not go in the text since it's a misnomer as far as current understanding goes. But the term still creeps up under "congenital". So I think we should put a link under "also see" on the bottom of this page. What do others think?? Lisa4edit--71.236.23.111 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources

Another potential source are toxic commercial products finding its way into the water that the mother drinks. Add in article, source for this is found here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/iu-toc033009.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.203.223 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War Related Birth Defects

This is one of the most important issues regarding Congenital disorder. Birth defects, particularity in war engaged countries, is very common. I am surprised to see that - except for an epidemiology map showing Iraq with high rates - there are no writings or sections stating Iraq as an example of why birth defects are rising in such areas, when all that come out Iraq regarding health news are articles of Birth Defects and nothing else, commonly from depleted uranium. High rates are also prevalent in such ares like Palestine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8548961.stm - 4th March 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8549745.stm - 4th March 2010 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jilgU_4lD9PDODsgfhnwBjR0QgIg?docId=CNG.206598fb22f92e16a410b484f1166d90.301 - 5th October 2010 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/147883.html - 23rd October 2010 (Today)

Is this section not relevant for inclusion in the article? Irfan2009 (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, but I'm not an expert on these issues and unsure how to add them here. Here is something they are calling The Kids of "the Iraqi Hiroshima" http://www.vice.com/read/karlos-zurutuza-on-iraq-unfolding-medical-nightmare Jeff Carr (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital vs. congenital

I do not understand the 3rd (and last) paragraph of the lead! The word 'congenital' purports to mean one thing in the first two paragraphs and something else (outdated) in the third paragraph. The difference is not explained, nor it is obvious from a look at the source. Please, someone, fix this to make sense. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hibakusha

I reformatted the section on the role of radiation since it doesn't seem like a significant cause of birth defect. I kept the link to Hibakusha, because it has a more comprehensive section on the discrimination there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal age

I couldn't find any information in the article on the correlation of maternal age with congenital disorders. Did I overlook something or could someone more knowledgeable than me in the field please insert such information? 129.247.247.240 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit of information on maternal age. I think it can be expanded a lot. Dmusheye (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concise and neutral-toned addition on maternal age. Gomer2 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Congenital disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101020145505/http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd/facts.htm to http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd/facts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced page views since article renamed

I noticed that the pageviews of the article significantly decreased since the title was changed in the beginning of December 2017. You can find a link to the data here. I wonder if this is a factor of what users search for (for example in google) when looking for this information. Dmusheye (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccinations

Vaccinations Would it be nice to add preventions that a future mother could take to prevent a birth defect like vaccinations? The mother should take the vaccinations before she gets pregnant to protect the future baby for example Hepatitis B. If the mother has hepatitis B during pregnancy, she could pass to her baby during birth. She should get a vaccine against Rubella before getting pregnant since it can cause serious birth defects.“Birth Defects.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4 Dec. 2017, www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/prevention.html. "Julietteguzman4 (talk)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenarntson (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Congenital" vs "Congenital Disease" vs "Birth Defect"

"Congenital" should not redirect to this page; it refers to any condition present at birth, not just those which cause disability. Also we should consider changing the title to something more neutral like "congenital disability" given that "birth defect" is commonly understood to be a stigmatizing term. 2406:E003:1587:F01:D90F:49D7:EA04:B358 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

The current image is old, of low quality and Down syndrome, a genetic disorder, doesn't even qualify as a birth defect in the narrow sense. I suggest replacing it with a picture of spina bifida (1), cleft lip (1, 2) or microcephaly (1, 2). –Tobias (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]