SynthesisBioMed research international2017
A Meta-Analysis about the Screening Role of Pulse Oximetry for Congenital Heart Disease.
Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for Depression in Poststroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Pulse oximetry test for screening congenital heart diseases: a systematic review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Pooled it
- An evaluation of a five-year program for newborn congenital heart disease screening in Jiangsu Province, 2019-2023.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Role of Newborn Pulse Oximetry Screening for Detecting Critical Congenital Heart Defects: A Narrative Review.Current pediatric reviews · 2025Review
- Newborn Pulse Oximetry Screening for Detecting Congenital Heart Disease: Experience at a Tertiary Care Center.International journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Physical Examination and Pulse Oximetry for Critical Congenital Cardiac Disease Screening in Newborns.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A Framework for AI-Assisted Detection of Patent Ductus Arteriosus from Neonatal Phonocardiogram.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Physicochemical parameters that underlie inkjet printing for medical applications.Biophysics reviews · 2020Review
- Prenatal detection of congenital anomalies and related factors in Argentina.Journal of community genetics · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe opinions about the application of pulse oximetry in diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD) were debatable. We performed this meta-analysis to confirm the diagnostic role of pulse oximetry screening for CHD.
methodsRelevant articles were searched in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to April 2017. Data was processed in the MetaDiSc 1.4 software. Pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated to explain the diagnostic role of pulse oximetry screening for CHD.
results22 eligible articles were selected. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.69 (0.67-0.72) and 0.99 (0.99-0.99), respectively. The corresponding AUC was 0.9407, suggesting high diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximetry screening for CHD. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the pooled results were robust. Deek's funnel plot seemed to be symmetrical.
conclusionsPulse oximetry screening could be used to diagnose CHD. It shows high diagnosis specificity and accuracy.
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.