Factors associated with congenital differences in neonates in southern Benin: a case-control study
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Congenital differences are one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in neonates. Their etiology is multifactorial including a combination of genetic and environmental factors. This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with congenital differences in neonates in southern Benin. Methods: We conducted a case-control study over a six-month period. Cases were neonates with congenital differences. A neonate of the same sex and gestational age, whose mother is the same age and parity as a case, who did not have any congenital difference, was considered a control. Data were extracted from registries and medical record. Analyses were performed using logistic regression models. Results: Seventy-eight cases were recorded out of the 3,534 newborns hospitalized, giving a hospital rate of 2.2%. They were matched with 147 controls. Digestive malformations (20.5%), congenital heart disease (16.7%) and anterior abdominal wall malformations (16.7%) were the main deformities observed. Factors associated with the occurrence of congenital differences were father's age (p=0.013), mother's origin (p=0.010), parity (p=0.029) and pregnancy follow-up (p=0.010). Mortality due to congenital malformations was 35.9%. Conclusion: Congenital differences should be assessed in all regions to determine their prevalence, nature and associated factors, so that specific preventive measures can be taken.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Factors associated with congenital differences in neonates in southern Benin: a case-control study
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2023
- Éditeur
- MedCrave Group Kft.
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.