Key result
Congenital heart defects were associated with higher odds of not meeting reading or math standards in third grade compared to no defects (44.6% vs 37.5%; OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12-1.37).
Why the study?
Do children with congenital heart defects have poorer academic outcomes compared to children without structural birth defects?
Cohort (n=9,162)
Do children with congenital heart defects have poorer academic outcomes compared to children without structural birth defects?
Odds Ratio: 1.24 (95% CI 1.12–1.37)
Absolute Event Rate: 44.6% vs 37.5%
Children with all types of congenital heart defects have poorer academic outcomes compared with their peers, highlighting the need for early evaluation for exceptional educational services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
CHD-associated academic risks may warrant monitoring; extends neurodevelopmental data but remains hypothesis-generating.
Oster et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Congenital heart defects (n=9,162). Congenital heart defects vs. No structural birth defects was evaluated on Not meeting standards on reading and math end-of-grade examinations in third grade (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12-1.37). Congenital heart defects were associated with higher odds of not meeting reading or math standards in third grade compared to no defects (44.6% vs 37.5%; OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12-1.37).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: