ArticlePediatric cardiology2019
Birth Location of Infants with Critical Congenital Heart Disease in California.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social determinants of health and outcomes for children and adults with congenital heart disease: a systematic review.Pediatric research · 2021Pooled it
- Congenital heart disease: epidemiological profile of live births, geographical distribution and temporal trends in Brazil from 2012 to 2022.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Observational
- Prevalence and trends of major congenital anomalies in Brazil: A study from 2011 to 2020.PloS one · 2025Article
- Lower Socioeconomic Status is Associated with an Increased Incidence and Spectrum of Major Congenital Heart Disease and Associated Extracardiac Pathology.Pediatric cardiology · 2024Article
- Birth Location in Infants with Prenatally Diagnosed Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome.Pediatric cardiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The American Academy of Pediatrics classifies neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) from level I to IV based on the acuity of care each unit can provide. Birth in a higher level center is associated with lower morbidity and mortality in high-risk populations. Congenital heart disease accounts for 25-50% of infant mortality related to birth defects in the U.S., but recent data are lacking on where infants with critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) are born. We used a linked dataset from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to access ICD-9 diagnosis codes for all infants born in California from 2008 to 2012. We compared infants with CCHD to the general population, identified where infants with CCHD were born based on NICU level of care, and predicted level IV birth among infants with CCHD using logistic regression techniques. From 2008 to 2012, 6325 infants with CCHD were born in California, with 23.7% of infants with CCHD born at a level IV NICU compared to 8.4% of the general population. Level IV birth for infants with CCHD was associated with lower gestational age, higher maternal age and education, the presence of other congenital anomalies, and the diagnosis of a single ventricle lesion. More infants with CCHD are born in a level IV NICU compared to the general population. Future studies are needed to determine if birth in a lower level of care center impacts outcomes for infants with 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.