ReviewAvicenna journal of medicine
Critical congenital heart disease screening.
Review in Avicenna journal of medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of cell therapies in pediatric heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2020Pooled it
- Neonatal nurses' performance in implementing the advancing newborn screening of critical congenital heart disease.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- The Critical Role of Pulse Oximetry Screening for Congenital Heart Disease and Patent Ductus Arteriosus in Newborns.Cureus · 2024Article
- An insight into Indonesia's progress for newborn screening program: What is currently going on.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Plasma metabolomic and lipidomic profiles accurately classify mothers of children with congenital heart disease: an observational study.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2024Observational
- Quality of life in adult patients with congenital heart disease: Results of a double-center study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- It Is Not Always Sepsis: Fatal Tachypnea in a Newborn.Case reports in pediatrics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) is a heart lesion for which neonates require early surgical intervention to survive. Without intervention, the rates of mortality and survival with significant disability are extremely high. Early diagnosis can potentially improve health outcomes in newborns with CCHD. Until recent years, no routine screening protocol existed. In the last few years, pulse oximetry screening for CCHD in newborns has been added to the list of recommended uniform screening panels and advocated by several health-care authorities. A positive screening test result warrants an echocardiogram to evaluate for CCHD. Newborn screens do not usually require parental consent. However, most of the states mandates in the United States include a statement allowing exemption from the screen on the basis of parental religious or personal beliefs.
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.