ArticleMaternal and child health journal2017
Critical Congenital Heart Disease Newborn Screening Implementation: Lessons Learned.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing Drug-Related Side Effects in Children With Congenital Heart Disease: A Policy Brief.Global pediatric health · 2024Article
- Clinical profile of congenital heart diseases detected in a tertiary hospital in China: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Circulating Cardiovascular Biomarker Levels for Early Detection of Congenital Heart Disease in Newborns in Sweden.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- A systematic review and meta-synthesis of policy intervention characteristics that influence the implementation of government-directed policy in the hospital setting: implications for infection prevention and control.Journal of infection prevention · 2020Review
- Quality Improvement Interventions to Improve Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction The purpose of this article is to present the collective experiences of six federally-funded critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) newborn screening implementation projects to assist federal and state policy makers and public health to implement CCHD screening. Methods A qualitative assessment and summary from six demonstration project grantees and other state representatives involved in the implementation of CCHD screening programs are presented in the following areas: legislation, provider and family education, screening algorithms and interpretation, data collection and quality improvement, telemedicine, home and rural births, and neonatal intensive care unit populations. Results The most common challenges to implementation include: lack of uniform legislative and statutory mandates for screening programs, lack of funding/resources, difficulty in screening algorithm interpretation, limited availability of pediatric echocardiography, and integrating data collection and reporting with existing newborn screening systems. Identified solutions include: programs should consider integrating third party insurers and other partners early in the legislative/statutory process; development of visual tools and language modification to assist in the interpretation of algorithms, training programs for adult sonographers to perform neonatal echocardiography, building upon existing newborn screening systems, and using automated data transfer mechanisms. Discussion Continued and expanded surveillance, research, prevention and education efforts are needed to inform screening programs, with an aim to reduce morbidity, mortality and other adverse consequences for individuals and families affected by CCHD.
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.