Published online September 1, 2006
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 3 September 2006, pp. 916-923 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1739)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail 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 File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rowland, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Alverson, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rowland, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Alverson, C. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Genetics & Dysmorphology

ARTICLE

Are Encephaloceles Neural Tube Defects?

Courtney A. Rowland, MD, Adolfo Correa, MD, PhD, Janet D. Cragan, MD and Clinton J. Alverson, MS

National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

OBJECTIVE. Encephalocele is classified as a neural tube defect, but questions have been raised regarding whether its epidemiological characteristics are similar to those of other neural tube defects.

DESIGN. We compared characteristics of temporal trends in, and the impact of folic acid grain fortification on, the prevalence of encephalocele, spina bifida, and anencephaly using data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program, a population-based birth defects surveillance system. Prevalences of encephalocele, spina bifida, and anencephaly were compared by maternal age, gender, race, birth weight, ascertainment period (1968–1981, 1982–1993, or 1994–2002), and fortification period (1994–1996 [prefortification] and 1998–2002 [postfortification]) using prevalence ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Temporal trends were assessed using Poisson and negative binomial regression models.

RESULTS. Prevalence rates of encephalocele (n = 167), spina bifida (n = 650), and anencephaly (n = 431) were 1.4, 5.5, and 3.7 per 10 000 live births, respectively. Encephalocele was similar to anencephaly in showing an increased prevalence among girls and multiple gestation pregnancies and to spina bifida and anencephaly in an annual prevalence decrease between 1968 and 2002 (–1.2% for encephalocele, –4.2% for spina bifida, and –3.6% for anencephaly). With fortification, prevalence decreased for spina bifida but not significantly for encephalocele or anencephaly.

CONCLUSIONS. Encephalocele shows more similarities to spina bifida or anencephaly than it shows differences with respect to characteristics, temporal trend, and impact of fortification. Additional studies should be done to explore the etiologic heterogeneity of encephalocele using better markers of folate status and a wider range of risk factors.

Key Words: encephalocele • neural tube defects • spina bifida • anencephaly • folic acid

Abbreviations: NTD—neural tube defect • SB—spina bifida • MACDP—Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program • PR—prevalence ratio • CI—confidence interval

Accepted Mar 28, 2006.