Publication: Registry-Based Study of Prevalence of Cleft Lip/Palate in Thailand from 2012 to 2015
Issued Date
2021-11-01
Resource Type
ISSN
15451569
10556656
10556656
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85100041906
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. Vol.58, No.11 (2021), 1430-1437
Suggested Citation
Pornpoj Fuangtharnthip, Wannapong Chonnapasatid, Sasipa Thiradilok, Somchai Manopatanakul, Somchit Jaruratanasirikul Registry-Based Study of Prevalence of Cleft Lip/Palate in Thailand from 2012 to 2015. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. Vol.58, No.11 (2021), 1430-1437. doi:10.1177/1055665620987677 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/76778
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Registry-Based Study of Prevalence of Cleft Lip/Palate in Thailand from 2012 to 2015
Abstract
Objective: Two main objectives were established. First objective was to determine the prevalence of the cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) in Thailand from 2012 to 2015 using the orofacial clefts (OFCs) registry and civil registration. Second objective was to conduct a quality control of this OFC registry especially for the Birth Defects Registration (BDR). Design: Registry-based survey. Setting: Analyzing data from the Thailand National Health Security Office. Participants: Registered patients with CL/P in Thailand from 2012 to 2015. Intervention: None Main Outcome Measure: Duplicated records were verified using National Identity Number (Thai ID#) and date of birth. The prevalence of CL/P and specific phenotypes was then calculated. From this prevalence estimate method, quality assurance of the OFCs registry was possible. Results: For the main outcome, the population-weighted pool prevalence of CL/P was 2.14 per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval of 2.08-2.20). Thai ID# and expense reimbursement systems were the main factors driving this cases capturing. However, this OFCs registration still requires active case finding with clinical verification, improvement of staff training and databases networking. Conclusions: This study reported a very high CL/P prevalence of Thailand. Strengths and limitations of these OFCs registry and BDR were described.