Prevalence rates of birth defects in the Federal Republic of Germany are informative to assess the general background risk of having a child with a birth defect. They provide basic figures to determine temporal and regional prevalence trends, to evaluate and initiate preventive measures and to initiate research projects. To avoid observer, definition and collection bias, active monitoring systems are required. Data collected in the active monitoring system of the Mainz Birth Defects Registry are presented. From 1990-1998, 30,940 live-births, stillbirths and abortions underwent standardized physical and sonographic examinations. Anamnestic data were collected from prenatal care records, maternity files and hospital records. Major malformations were diagnosed in 2144 (6.9%) and mild errors of morphogenesis in 11,104 (35.8%) of all infants. Risk factors associated with the occurrence of major malformations were identified by comparing anamnestic data from infants with and without major malformations. Using multivariate regression models, statistically significant associations were established for 9 risk factors. Causally related risk factors were parents or siblings with malformations, parental consanguinity, more than 3 minor errors of morphogenesis in the proband, maternal diabetes mellitus and ingestion of antiallergic drugs in the first trimester of pregnancy. Conjunctional risk factors were polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios and gestational age <32 weeks at birth. Using these risk factors, populations at risk for the occurrence of major malformation can be identified.

The widespread use of cellular telephones has generated concern about possible adverse health effects, particularly brain tumors. In this population-based case-control study carried out in three regions of Germany, all incident cases of glioma and meningioma among patients aged 30-69 years were ascertained during 2000-2003. Controls matched on age, gender, and region were randomly drawn from population registries. In total, 366 glioma cases, 381 meningioma cases, and 1,494 controls were interviewed. Overall use of a cellular phone was not associated with brain tumor risk; the respective odds ratios were 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74, 1.29) for glioma and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.13) for meningioma. Among persons who had used cellular phones for 10 or more years, increased risk was found for glioma (odds ratio = 2.20, 95% CI: 0.94, 5.11) but not for meningioma (odds ratio = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.35, 3.37). No excess of temporal glioma (p = 0.41) or meningioma (p = 0.43) was observed in cellular phone users as compared with nonusers. Cordless phone use was not related to either glioma risk or meningioma risk. In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

The aim of the present analysis was to examine the association of a medical history of asthma, hay fever, eczema, or epilepsy with the risk of glioma and meningioma. Data of a German population-based case-control study included 381 meningioma cases, 366 glioma cases, and 1,494 controls. Participants' histories of asthma, hay fever, eczema, and epilepsy and the respective ages at onset were asked during a personal interview. A small inverse association between allergic condition and both glioma (odds ratio: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.70-1.22) and meningioma (odd ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.66-1.14) was found. For glioma, this inverse association was more pronounced in persons reporting to have asthma compared to other allergic conditions. The positive association between epilepsy and particularly glioma suggests that epilepsy is an early symptom of the disease. As the association was seen also for epilepsies occurring more than a decade before the diagnosis of glioma, this might indicate either an aetiological role of epilepsy, or a relatively long preclinical phase. In conclusion our study confirms previous findings of case control studies but not those from cohort studies. However, possible selection bias in case control studies might not explain the different results in its entirety.