ArticlePediatrics2016
Lessons Learned From Newborn Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Defects.
Article in Pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Isolated Coarctation of the Aorta: Current Concepts and Perspectives.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- 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
- Timing of Critical Congenital Heart Defect Detection: A Multisite Population-Based Study.The Journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Challenges Faced by Healthcare Professionals in Screening Newborns for Congenital Heart Defects in Pakistan.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Article
- Pulse Oximetry Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Defects: Effectiveness and Implementation across Clinical Settings.Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Nationwide Birth Prevalence of Crucial Congenital Heart Defects From 2014 to 2018 in Korea.Korean circulation journal · 2024Article
- Pulse Oximetry-Based Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening and Its Differential Performance in Rural America.Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice · 2024Article
- Pathogenesis and Surgical Treatment of Dextro-Transposition of the Great Arteries (D-TGA): Part II.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Survival Status and Associated Factors among Under-Five Children Managed with Congenital Heart Diseases in Addis Ababa Ethiopia: A Retrospective Follow-up Study.Rwanda journal of medicine and health sciences · 2024Article
- Assessing interstate racial and socioeconomic disparities in newborn screening policies in the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Can machine learning methods be used for identification of at-risk neonates in low-resource settings? A prospective cohort study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2023Article
- Trajectories of oxygen saturation within 6-72 hours after birth in neonates at moderate altitude: a prospective longitudinal cohort study.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2023Article
- Lower pass threshold (≥93%) for critical congenital heart disease screening at high altitude prevents repeat screening and reduces false positives.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2022Article
- Impact of an electronic medical record-based automated screening program for critical congenital heart disease: Emirates Health Services, United Arab Emirates.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Observational
- Lessons Learned from Infants with Late Detection of Critical Congenital Heart Disease.Pediatric cardiology · 2022Article
- Prevalence of critical congenital heart defects and selected co-occurring congenital anomalies, 2014-2018: A U.S. population-based study.Birth defects research · 2022Article
- The Use of Whole Genome and Exome Sequencing for Newborn Screening: Challenges and Opportunities for Population Health.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
- A novel system to collect dual pulse oximetry data for critical congenital heart disease screening research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
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
Abstract
Newborn screening for critical congenital heart defects (CCHD) was added to the US Recommended Uniform Screening Panel in 2011. Within 4 years, 46 states and the District of Columbia had adopted it into their newborn screening program, leading to CCHD screening being nearly universal in the United States. This rapid adoption occurred while there were still questions about the effectiveness of the recommended screening protocol and barriers to follow-up for infants with a positive screen. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention partnered with the American Academy of Pediatrics to convene an expert panel between January and September 2015 representing a broad array of primary care, neonatology, pediatric cardiology, nursing, midwifery, public health, and advocacy communities. The panel's goal was to review current practices in newborn screening for CCHD and to identify opportunities for improvement. In this article, we describe the experience of CCHD screening in the United States with regard to: (1) identifying the target lesions for CCHD screening; (2) optimizing the algorithm for screening; (3) determining state-level challenges to implementation and surveillance of CCHD; (4) educating all stakeholders; (5) performing screening using the proper equipment and in a cost-effective manner; and (6) implementing screening in special settings such as the NICU, out-of-hospital settings, and areas of high altitude.
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.