Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25963011›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2015

Estimated number of infants detected and missed by critical congenital heart defect screening.

Elizabeth C Ailes, Suzanne M Gilboa, Margaret A Honein, Matthew E Oster

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Arch watch: current approaches and opportunities for improvement.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Critical congenital heart disease detection in the ANDES: Challenges and opportunities.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth C AilesNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; eailes@cdc.gov.
Suzanne M GilboaNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia;
Margaret A HoneinNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia;
Matthew E OsterNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Sibley Heart Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia; and Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USChildren's Healthcare of Atlanta · US

Funding

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesIn 2011, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services recommended universal screening of newborns for critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs), yet few estimates of the number of infants with CCHDs likely to be detected through universal screening exist. Our objective was to estimate the number of infants with nonsyndromic CCHDs in the United States likely to be detected (true positives) and missed (false negatives) through universal newborn CCHD screening.

methodsWe developed a simulation model based on estimates of birth prevalence, prenatal diagnosis, late detection, and sensitivity of newborn CCHD screening through pulse oximetry to estimate the number of true-positive and false-negative nonsyndromic cases of the 7 primary and 5 secondary CCHD screening targets identified through screening.

resultsWe estimated that 875 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 705-1060) US infants with nonsyndromic CCHDs, including 470 (95% UI: 360-585) infants with primary CCHD screening targets, will be detected annually through newborn CCHD screening. An additional 880 (UI: 700-1080) false-negative screenings, including 280 (95% UI: 195-385) among primary screening targets, are expected. We estimated that similar numbers of CCHDs would be detected under scenarios comparing "lower" (∼19%) and "higher" (∼41%) than current prenatal detection prevalences.

conclusionsA substantial number of nonsyndromic CCHD cases are likely to be detected through universal CCHD screening; however, an equal number of false-negative screenings, primarily among secondary targets of screening, are likely to occur. Future efforts should document the true impact of CCHD screening in practice.

Indexed as

Neonatal ScreeningCritical IllnessFalse Negative ReactionsHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansInfant, NewbornModels, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID25963011
PMCPMC4470502
OpenAlexW1593289977

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.