ArticleMaternal and child health journal2017
An Evaluation of the Addition of Critical Congenital Heart Defect Screening in Georgia Newborn Screening Procedures.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives Each year in the U.S., approximately 7200 infants are born with a critical congenital heart defect (CCHD). The Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH) mandated routine screening for CCHD starting January 2015. The current study evaluated hospital performance of the mandated CCHD screenings in Georgia. Methods Utilizing the DPH newborn screening surveillance system, data from 6 months before and after the mandate were analyzed for reports submitted and positive CCHD screening results. Chi square tests of independence were performed to examine the association between reporting of results for CCHD screening after the mandate and hospital nursery level [level I (well-baby/newborn); level II (special care); level III (neonatal intensive care unit-NICU)] and NICU submissions. Results In the 6 months following implementation, reports of the screening increased, but the DPH had not received information for approximately 40% of newborns. Hospitals with level III nurseries had poorer reporting rates compared to hospitals with level I or II nurseries. Newborn screening (NBS) cards submitted by NICUs were less likely to contain the CCHD screening results compared to cards submitted by regular Labor and Delivery units. Conclusions for Practice Further attention should focus on improving both CCHD screening and reporting of screening results within hospitals with level III nurseries and from NICUs at all hospital levels. Identifying and addressing the root of the issue, whether it be hospital compliance with CCHD screening or reporting of the results, will help to improve screening rates for all newborns, especially those most vulnerable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28730329What 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.