Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24493342›Full record

ArticleJAMA pediatrics2014

Late detection of critical congenital heart disease among US infants: estimation of the potential impact of proposed universal screening using pulse oximetry.

Cora Peterson, Elizabeth Ailes, Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso, Matthew E Oster, Richard S Olney, Cynthia H Cassell, David E Fixler, Suzan L Carmichael, Gary M Shaw, Suzanne M Gilboa

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Arch watch: current approaches and opportunities for improvement.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Cora PetersonDivision of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia2currently affiliated with National Center for Injury Prevention and Con.
Elizabeth AilesDivision of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia3Epidemic Intelligence Service, Scientific Education and Professional De.
Tiffany Riehle-ColarussoDivision of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Matthew E OsterDivision of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia4Sibley Heart Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University.
Richard S OlneyDivision of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Cynthia H CassellDivision of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
David E FixlerDepartment of Pediatrics, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Suzan L CarmichaelDivision of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University Medical School, Palo Alto, California.
Gary M ShawDivision of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University Medical School, Palo Alto, California.
Suzanne M GilboaDivision of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USStanford University · USChildren's Healthcare of Atlanta · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NCBDD CDC HHS FOA DD09-001PHS HHS PA 02081PHS HHS PA 96043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceCritical congenital heart disease (CCHD) was added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for Newborns in the United States in 2011. Many states have recently adopted or are considering requirements for universal CCHD screening through pulse oximetry in birth hospitals. Limited previous research is directly applicable to the question of how many US infants with CCHD might be identified through screening.

objectivesTo estimate the proportion of US infants with late detection of CCHD (>3 days after birth) based on existing clinical practice and to investigate factors associated with late detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsDescriptive and multivariable analysis. Data were obtained from a multisite population-based study of birth defects in the United States, the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS). We included all live-born infants with estimated dates of delivery from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2007, and nonsyndromic, clinically verified CCHD conditions potentially detectable through screening via pulse oximetry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome measure was the proportion of infants with late detection of CCHD through echocardiography or at autopsy under the assumption that universal screening at birth hospitals might reduce the number of such late diagnoses. Secondary outcome measures included prevalence ratios for associations between selected demographic and clinical factors and late detection of CCHD.

resultsOf 3746 live-born infants with nonsyndromic CCHD, late detection occurred in 1106 (29.5% [95% CI, 28.1%-31.0%]), including 6 (0.2%) (0.1%-0.4%) first receiving a diagnosis at autopsy more than 3 days after birth. Late detection varied by CCHD type from 9 of 120 infants (7.5% [95% CI, 3.5%-13.8%]) with pulmonary atresia to 497 of 801 (62.0% [58.7%-65.4%]) with coarctation of the aorta. In multivariable analysis, late detection varied significantly by CCHD type and study site, and infants with extracardiac defects were significantly less likely to have late detection of CCHD (adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.69]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We estimate that 29.5% of live-born infants with nonsyndromic CCHD in the NBDPS received a diagnosis more than 3 days after birth and therefore might have benefited from routine CCHD screening at birth hospitals. The number of infants in whom CCHD was detected through screening likely varies by several factors, including CCHD type. Additional population-based studies of screening in practice are needed.

Indexed as

Heart Defects, CongenitalHumansInfantMass ScreeningOximetryPrevalenceUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24493342
PMCPMC4470377
OpenAlexW1974383203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.