ArticlePediatric cardiology2013
Feasibility of pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease at 2643-foot elevation.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reference Interval for Pulse Oxygen Saturation in Neonates at Different Altitudes: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Evaluating Neonatal Oxygen Saturation From a Moderate Altitude to Below Sea Level: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Observational
- The impact of altitude on screening for critical congenital heart disease.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2018Article
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the feasibility of implementing a pulse oximetry screening protocol at a city of mild elevation with a specific focus on the false-positive screening rate. Pulse oximetry screening was performed according to the proposed guidelines endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics at a center in Tucson, AZ, at an elevation of 2,643 ft (806 m). During a 10-month period in 2012, 1069 full-term asymptomatic newborns were screened ≥ 24 h after birth. The mean preductal oxygen saturation was 98.5 ± 1.3 % (range 92-100 %), and the mean postductal oxygen saturation was 98.6 ± 1.3 % (range 94-100 %). Of 1,069 patients screened, 7 were excluded secondary to protocol violations, and 1 screened positive. An echocardiogram was performed on the newborn with the positive screen, and it was normal with the exception of right-to-left shunting across a patent foramen ovale. The false-positive rate was 1/1,062 or 0.094 %. The pulse oximetry screening guidelines recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics are feasible at an elevation of 2,643 ft (806 m) with a low false-positive rate. Adjustments to the protocol are not required for centers at elevations ≤ 2,643 ft. Future studies at greater elevations are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.