User talk:Rossodio

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Rossodio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

— Moe ε 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down syndrome & Congenital heart conditions

Thanks for working on the rate for congenital heart disease in individuals with Down syndrome. I'm pretty sure I was the one who put in the 50% rate, but I can't find the link to that specific number. I did a quick google search, trying to find a reference to use with 20%, and ran across four numbers:

"Between 30 and 45 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born with heart defects." http://www.downsyn.com/whatmed.html
"The incidence of congenital heart disease in children with Down syndrome is up to 50 percent." http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/heart-encyclopedia/disease/syndrome/down.htm
"For example, more than one-third of children with the chromosomal abnormality Down syndrome (characterized by mental retardation and physical birth defects) have heart defects" http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1212.asp
"Of the 227 DS infants, 44% had CHDs." Sallie B. Freeman, Lisa F. Taft, Kenneth J. Dooley, Katherine Allran, Stephanie L. Sherman, Terry J. Hassold, Muin J. Khoury, Denise M. Saker (1998). "Population-based study of congenital heart defects in Down syndrome". American Journal of Medical Genetics. 80 (3): 213–217.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) The standard error would be about 3%.

Of course, all but the last are second-hand estimates (possibly third-hand), and the last one is 8 years old. Can you help me out by pointing me to some source indicating the lower number? Any help you can give is appreciated. Thank you. Ted 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to get a copy of the Indian Journal article, but I did look at the other articles. From a statistical standpoint, the Amer J Human Genet is the best one for determining rates. Most of the other ones I read seemed to do the normal medical research practice of choosing patients of mixed ages and classifying them. The presence of CHD will have an effect on mortality, so a population study would be better. Even so, it seems strange to get such divergent results (17.8% vs 44%). Even more strange is that Kaplan would choose that number. I am beginning to wonder if there is something I am missing -- like a different definition (ASVD only?). I'll continue to look when I have time. Ted (Talk) 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]