ArticlePediatrics2013
Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for critical congenital heart disease in US newborns.
Article in Pediatrics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 4 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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of MTHFD1 G1958A (rs2236225) gene polymorphism with the risk of congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical genomics · 2025Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Oximetry and neonatal examination for the detection of critical congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.F1000Research · 2019Pooled it
- Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Newborn Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening Using Pulse Oximetry in a Global Context: Progress, Disparities, and the Importance of Early Detection.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Pulse Oximetry Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Disease: A Four-Year Experience in Qatar.Cureus · 2026Article
- Pulse Oximetry Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Defects: Effectiveness and Implementation across Clinical Settings.Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-utility analysis of prenatal diagnosis of congenital cardiac diseases using deep learning.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- Current Postlaunch Implementation of State Mandates of Newborn Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Disease by Pulse Oximetry in U.S. States and Hospitals.American journal of perinatology · 2024Article
- Feasibility of screening for critical congenital heart disease using pulse oximetry in Indonesia.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Impact of pulse oximetry screening to detect congenital heart defects: 5 years' experience in a UK regional neonatal unit.European journal of pediatrics · 2022Observational
- Population-based screening of newborns: Findings from the newborn screening expansion study (part two).Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Using a participatory method to test a strategy supporting the implementation of a state policy on screening children for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in a Federally Qualified Health Center system: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Race and Genetics in Congenital Heart Disease: Application of iPSCs, Omics, and Machine Learning Technologies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Nusinersen and Universal Newborn Screening for Spinal Muscular Atrophy.The Journal of pediatrics · 2020Article
- The Methodological Quality and Challenges in Conducting Economic Evaluations of Newborn Screening: A Scoping Review.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020Article
- Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects in Ontario, Canada: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2020Article
- Pulse Oximetry Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Defects: A Life-Saving Test for All Newborn Babies.International journal of neonatal screening · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of newborn pulse oximetry screening to detect critical congenital heart disease in Colombia.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects following homebirth and early discharge.European journal of pediatrics · 2019Article
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
Abstract
objectivesClinical evidence indicates newborn critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) screening through pulse oximetry is lifesaving. In 2011, CCHD was added to the US Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for newborns. Several states have implemented or are considering screening mandates. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine screening among US newborns unsuspected of having CCHD.
methodsWe developed a cohort model with a time horizon of infancy to estimate the inpatient medical costs and health benefits of CCHD screening. Model inputs were derived from new estimates of hospital screening costs and inpatient care for infants with late-detected CCHD, defined as no diagnosis at the birth hospital. We estimated the number of newborns with CCHD detected at birth hospitals and life-years saved with routine screening compared with no screening.
resultsScreening was estimated to incur an additional cost of $6.28 per newborn, with incremental costs of $20 862 per newborn with CCHD detected at birth hospitals and $40 385 per life-year gained (2011 US dollars). We estimated 1189 more newborns with CCHD would be identified at birth hospitals and 20 infant deaths averted annually with screening. Another 1975 false-positive results not associated with CCHD were estimated to occur, although these results had a minimal impact on total estimated costs.
conclusionsThis study provides the first US cost-effectiveness analysis of CCHD screening in the United States could be reasonably cost-effective. We anticipate data from states that have recently approved or initiated CCHD screening will become available over the next few years to refine these projections.
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.