User talk:Rossodio

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * — M o e   ε  23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) "Between 30 and 45 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born with heart defects." http://www.downsyn.com/whatmed.html
 * 2) "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
 * 3) "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
 * 4) "Of the 227 DS infants, 44% had CHDs." 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)

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)