Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27468253›Full record

ReviewMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2016

Pulse oximetry screening: a review of diagnosing critical congenital heart disease in newborns.

Melissa S Engel, Lazaros K Kochilas

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Identifying performance differences between two pulse oximetry systems in simulated critical neonatal conditions.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa S EngelDivision of Neonatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Lazaros K KochilasChildren's Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Emory University · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is one of the most common birth defects, with an incidence of nine out of every 1,000 live births. The mortality of infants with CHD has decreased over the past 3 decades, but significant morbidity and mortality continue to occur if not diagnosed shortly after birth. Pulse oximetry was recommended as a screening tool to detect critical CHD in 2011 by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association. Pulse oximetry is a tool to measure oxygen saturation, and based on the presence of hypoxemia, many cardiac lesions are detected. Due to its ease of application to the patient, providing results in a timely manner and without the need for calibrating the sensor probe, pulse oximetry offers many advantages as a screening tool. However, pulse oximetry has also important limitations of which physicians should be aware to be able to assess the significance of the pulse oximetry measurement for a given patient. This review aims to highlight the benefits and shortcomings of pulse oximetry within the context of screening for critical CHD and suggests future avenues to cover existing gaps in current practices.

Indexed as

congenital heart diseasecritical congenital heart diseasenewbornnewborn screeningpulse oximetry

Identifiers

PMID27468253
PMCPMC4946827
OpenAlexW2466736760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.