Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (52)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bishop, J.
Right arrow Articles by Deddens, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bishop, J.
Right arrow Articles by Deddens, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 145, No. 2: 134-147
Copyright © 1997 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health


research-article

Epidemiologic Study of Down Syndrome in a Racially Diverse California Population, 1989–1991

Jennifer Bishop1, Carl A. Huether1,, Claudine Torfs2, Frederick Lorey3 and James Deddens4

1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH
2California Birth Defects Monitoring Program Emeryville, CA
3Genetic Disease Branch, California Department of Health Services Berkeley, CA
4Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH

Reprint requests to Dr. Carl A. Huether, Department of Biological Sciences, 821A Rieveschl Hall (ML 006), University of Clncinnati, Clncinnati, OH 45221-0006.

The prevalence of Down syndrome was studied among all live births occurring between 1989 and 1991 in the California counties monitored by the California Birth Defects Monitoring Program. Objectives of this study were: 1) to calculate adjusted prevalence rates and quinquennial maternal age-specific risk rates of Down syndrome after adjusting for elective abortion of prenatally diagnosed fetuses; 2) to estimate the impact of prenatal diagnosis and subsequent elective abortion of affected fetuses on the observed prevalence of Down syndrome; and 3) to examine sex ratios among livebom infants and fetuses with- Down syndrome. The racial/ethnic diversity and large size of the population allowed the data to be stratified into five racial categories—Hispanics, whites, Asians, blacks, and others. For the period 1989–1991, the observed prevalence of Down syndrome was 1.13 per 1,000 live births, and the adjusted total prevalence, which took into account the termination of affected pregnancies following prenatal diagnosis, was 1.53 per 1,000 live births. In a comparison of quinquennial maternal age-specific risk rates of Down syndrome by race, Hispanics and whites were the only groups with rates that differed significantly from each other, with Hispanics exhibiting higher rates at maternal ages under 40 years. The overall reduction in live births with Down syndrome in 1989–1991 that could be attributed to prenatal diagnosis and elective abortion of affected fetuses was 25.8%, with a 49.1% reduction being observed at maternal ages ≥ 35 years. In 1990–1991, Hispanics had the lowest overall reduction (10.0%), while whites had the highest reduction (46.3%). The male: female ratios among liveboms with Down syndrome were significantly higher than those among all live births, and race had a significant association with sex ratios in both cases and controls. These findings indicate that prenatal diagnosis and elective termination of affected pregnancies has had a substantial impact in reducing the number of liveboms with Down syndrome in the monitored California counties. The effect was greatest for whites and least for Hispanics, with results indicating considerable variation in the use of prenatal diagnostic services among racial/ethnic groups. Estimates of adjusted total prevalence and reduction in live births with Down syndrome in this study should be considered minimal because of some underascertainment of prenatally diagnosed cases. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145: 134–47.

age factors; Down syndrome; maternal age; prenatal diagnosis; racial stocks; sex ratio


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
AJPHHome page
B. Khoshnood, C. De Vigan, V. Vodovar, G. Breart, F. Goffinet, and B. Blondel
Advances in Medical Technology and Creation of Disparities: The Case of Down Syndrome
Am J Public Health, December 1, 2006; 96(12): 2139 - 2144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
P.H. Jongbloet
The ovopathy concept for explaining the secondary sex ratio
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 1036 - 1037.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
P.H. Jongbloet
Over-ripeness ovopathy: A challenging hypothesis for sex ratio modulation
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 769 - 774.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
AJPHHome page
B. Khoshnood, B. Blondel, C. De Vigan, and G. Breart
Socioeconomic Barriers to Informed Decisionmaking Regarding Maternal Serum Screening for Down Syndrome: Results of the French National Perinatal Survey of 1998
Am J Public Health, March 1, 2004; 94(3): 484 - 491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
C. P. Torfs and R. E. Christianson
Effect of Maternal Smoking and Coffee Consumption on the Risk of Having a Recognized Down Syndrome Pregnancy
Am. J. Epidemiol., December 15, 2000; 152(12): 1185 - 1191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Med. Genet.Home page
A. D Carothers, C. A Hecht, and E. B Hook
International variation in reported livebirth prevalence rates of Down syndrome, adjusted for maternal age
J. Med. Genet., May 1, 1999; 36(5): 386 - 393.
[Abstract] [Full Text]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.