ArticleMMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report2013
Assessment of current practices and feasibility of routine screening for critical congenital heart defects - Georgia, 2012.
Article in MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preparing newborn screening for the future: a collaborative stakeholder engagement exploring challenges and opportunities to modernizing the newborn screening system.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Effect of newborn screening for critical CHD on healthcare utilisation.Cardiology in the young · 2020Article
- An Evaluation of the Addition of Critical Congenital Heart Defect Screening in Georgia Newborn Screening Procedures.Maternal and child health journal · 2017Article
- Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Assessments of Newborn Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Disease Using Pulse Oximetry: A Review.International journal of neonatal screening · 2017Article
- Epidemic Assistance by the Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005-2014.Journal of epidemiology and preventive medicine · 2016Article
- Estimated number of infants detected and missed by critical congenital heart defect screening.Pediatrics · 2015Article
- Late detection of critical congenital heart disease among US infants: estimation of the potential impact of proposed universal screening using pulse oximetry.JAMA pediatrics · 2014Article
- Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for critical congenital heart disease in US newborns.Pediatrics · 2013Article
- Factors associated with late detection of critical congenital heart disease in newborns.Pediatrics · 2013Article
- A public health economic assessment of hospitals' cost to screen newborns for critical congenital heart disease.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In September 2011, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services recommended that critical congenital heart defects (CCHD) be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) for newborns. Anecdotal reports in early 2012 suggested that some Georgia hospitals had begun screening for CCHD using pulse oximetry. To better understand the prevalence of routine CCHD screening, specific practices among screening hospitals, and barriers to screening among all birthing hospitals in the state, CDC and the Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH) conducted two surveys of Georgia hospitals in June 2012. Eleven pulse oximetry screenings at five hospitals also were observed to estimate screening time. The initial survey was sent to 89 birthing hospitals, among which 71 (80%) responded; 22 (31%) reported currently screening for CCHD and 20 (28%) planned to start in 2012. Barriers to screening included lack of a clear follow-up protocol for positive screening tests, uncertainty about reporting screening results to public health organizations, and cost concerns. Sixteen (73%) currently screening hospitals responded to the second survey. Only one third of screening hospitals followed the CCHD screening protocol endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics; the remaining hospitals screened at different times or had different criteria for a positive screen. Screening time averaged 10 minutes per newborn. In the absence of a state mandate, routine screening has begun in many Georgia hospitals. Use of a standardized screening protocol for CCHD could reduce current variation in screening practices among Georgia hospitals. Working agreements between hospitals also are needed to ensure access to echocardiography and follow-up of newborns with possible CCHD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23594685PMC4604975What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.