ArticleCureus2019
Clinical Screening for Congenital Heart Disease in Newborns at a Tertiary Care Hospital of a Developing Country.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal Strategies for Screening Common Birth Defects in Children of Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Neonatology · 2025Pooled it
- Pulse oximetry test for screening congenital heart diseases: a systematic review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Pooled it
- Development and Validation of a Predictive Screening Model for Congenital Heart Disease in High-Altitude Children.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- [Expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of common neonatal diseases in primary healthcare institutions: congenital heart disease (2025)].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2025Article
- Editorial: Celebrating Diversity and Advancements in Pediatric Cardiology-A Journey through Specialized Research.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo screen all newborns admitted to a tertiary care hospital to rule out congenital heart disease before discharge and to find out the utility of pulse oximetry to detect congenital heart disease. METHODOLOGY: This prospective study was done at Aga Khan University Hospital from January 2014 to December 2014 in 1,650 newborns over a period of 12 months. Pulse oximetry and clinical examination were done. Persistent oxygen saturation less than 95% was considered as positive pulse oximetry. Newborns who had positive pulse oximetry or abnormal clinical examinations findings were subjected to echocardiography.
resultsPulse oximetry was performed on 1,650 newborns, out of which 25 (1.5%) had congenital heart disease. Positive pulse oximetry cases were 16 (0.97%), out of which 10 had only positive pulse oximetry (negative clinical examination). Positive clinical examination cases were 45 (2.7%), out of which 39 cases had only positive clinical examinations (negative pulse oximetry). Six newborns had both positive pulse oximetry and positive clinical examination. Out of the 25 diagnosed cases of congenital heart disease, ventricular septal defect (VSD) was the most common congenital heart disease, followed by patent ductus arteriosus (PDA). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of pulse oximetry were 32%, 99.5%, 50%, and 98.9% respectively.
conclusionIn the community setting of a developing country, a combination of pulse oximetry screening and clinical examination are better at detecting congenital heart defects than either test alone.
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.