ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2015
Screening for pectus excavatum among primary students and establishment of a pectus excavatum screening program in Dongguan, China.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis and Management of Pectus Excavatum in Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Article
- Analysis of risk factors for poor wound healing after Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum and establishment of a predictive model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Intervention of the Nuss Procedure on the Mental Health of Pectus Excavatum Patients.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo carry out pectus excavatum (PEx) screening among primary school students in Dongguan, with an attempt to establish a PEx screening program and provide epidemiological evidences for developing guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of PEx for young children.
methodsA total of 479,402 primary school students who were already in school in 2012 or newly enrolled in 2013 from 422 primary schools in 32 towns in Dongguan, Guangdong Province were screened for PEx. Meanwhile, about 420 medical staff from the infirmaries of 422 primary schools were provided with a serial of training, with an attempt to establish a PEx screening program and network.
resultsValid screening results were obtained from 477,627 pupils (99.62%) from 406 primary schools in 31 towns. These students aged 4-15 years (mean: 8.78 years), among whom there were 244,545 males (N1; mean age: 8.22 years) and 233,082 females (N2; mean age: 8.89 years). Totally 257 PEx patients were identified, yielding a prevalence of 0.583%, among whom there were 176 males (N3; mean age: 8.79 years) and 81 females (N4; mean age: 8.77 years). With the PEx patients as the PEx group and the healthy children as the control group, chi square test with gender as the dependent variable showed that the incidence of PEx was significantly different between male and female students (P=0.00) (N3:N4 =2.172:1). In addition, 410 medical staff from the school infirmaries were trained, and a PEx screening program and network was established.
conclusionsThe screening for PEx was successfully performed among pupils who were already in school in 2012 or newly enrolled in 2013 from 422 primary schools in Dongguan, Guangdong Province. Statistical analysis showed that the incidence of PEx differed between male and female pupils. A stable effective PEx screening program was established, which will provide personal and technical supports for the early diagnosis and treatment of this condition.
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.