Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29494750›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects.

Maria N Plana, Javier Zamora, Gautham Suresh, Luis Fernandez-Pineda, Shakila Thangaratinam, Andrew K Ewer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 251 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Should Dual Pulse Oximetry Screening Be Used in Neonates? The Insights from the CHOOSE Study.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Maria N PlanaClinical Biostatistics Unit, Ramón y Cajal Hospital (IRYCIS), CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Carretera de Colmenar Km 9.100, Madrid, Spain, 28034.
Javier Zamora
Gautham Suresh
Luis Fernandez-Pineda
Shakila Thangaratinam
Andrew K Ewer
Queen Mary University of London · GBBaylor College of Medicine · USHospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal · ESInstituto Cajal · ESUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth outcomes are improved when newborn babies with critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) are detected before acute cardiovascular collapse. The main screening tests used to identify these babies include prenatal ultrasonography and postnatal clinical examination; however, even though both of these methods are available, a significant proportion of babies are still missed. Routine pulse oximetry has been reported as an additional screening test that can potentially improve detection of CCHD.

objectives• To determine the diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximetry as a screening method for detection of CCHD in asymptomatic newborn infants• To assess potential sources of heterogeneity, including:○ characteristics of the population: inclusion or exclusion of antenatally detected congenital heart defects;○ timing of testing: < 24 hours versus ≥ 24 hours after birth;○ site of testing: right hand and foot (pre-ductal and post-ductal) versus foot only (post-ductal);○ oxygen saturation: functional versus fractional;○ study design: retrospective versus prospective design, consecutive versus non-consecutive series; and○ risk of bias for the "flow and timing" domain of QUADAS-2. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library and the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj), up to March 2017. We searched the reference lists of all included articles and relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies not found through the electronic search. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies that met predefined criteria for design, population, tests, and outcomes. We included cross-sectional and cohort studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximetry screening for diagnosis of CCHD in term and late preterm asymptomatic newborn infants. We considered all protocols of pulse oximetry screening (eg, different saturation thresholds to define abnormality, post-ductal only or pre-ductal and post-ductal measurements, test timing less than or greater than 24 hours). Reference standards were diagnostic echocardiography (echocardiogram) and clinical follow-up, including postmortem findings, mortality, and congenital anomaly databases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted accuracy data for the threshold used in primary studies. We explored between-study variability and correlation between indices visually through use of forest and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used the bivariate model to calculate random-effects pooled sensitivity and specificity values. We investigated sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. MAIN

resultsTwenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 457,202 participants). Nineteen studies provided data for the primary analysis (oxygen saturation threshold < 95% or ≤ 95%; N = 436,758 participants). The overall sensitivity of pulse oximetry for detection of CCHD was 76.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.5 to 82.0) (low certainty of the evidence). Specificity was 99.9% (95% CI 99.7 to 99.9), with a false-positive rate of 0.14% (95% CI 0.07 to 0.22) (high certainty of the evidence). Summary positive and negative likelihood ratios were 535.6 (95% CI 280.3 to 1023.4) and 0.24 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.31), respectively. These results showed that out of 10,000 apparently healthy late preterm or full-term newborn infants, six will have CCHD (median prevalence in our review). Screening by pulse oximetry will detect five of these infants as having CCHD and will miss one case. In addition, screening by pulse oximetry will falsely identify another 14 infants out of the 10,000 as having suspected CCHD when they do not have it.The false-positive rate for detection of CCHD was lower when newborn pulse oximetry was performed longer than 24 hours after birth than when it was performed within 24 hours (0.06%, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.13, vs 0.42%, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89; P = 0.027).Forest and ROC plots showed greater variability in estimated sensitivity than specificity across studies. We explored heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses and meta-regression of inclusion or exclusion of antenatally detected congenital heart defects, timing of testing, and risk of bias for the "flow and timing" domain of QUADAS-2, and we did not find an explanation for the heterogeneity in sensitivity. AUTHORS'

conclusionsPulse oximetry is a highly specific and moderately sensitive test for detection of CCHD with very low false-positive rates. Current evidence supports the introduction of routine screening for CCHD in asymptomatic newborns before discharge from the well-baby nursery.

Indexed as

Asymptomatic DiseasesData AccuracyFalse Positive ReactionsHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansInfant, NewbornOximetrySensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID29494750
PMCPMC6494396
OpenAlexW2794285671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.