ReviewIndian journal of pediatrics2020
Timing of Interventions in Infants and Children with Congenital Heart Defects.
Review in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- SBUF-SMUF: On the path to the optimum hemofiltration technique in pediatric cardiopulmonary bypass: A randomized clinical trial.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2026Trial
- Medical Travel and Geographic Inequities in Access to Pediatric Congenital Heart Surgery: Evidence from a Nationwide Cohort in South Korea.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- The Role of Immune Markers in Predicting Infectious Complications in Children with Congenital Heart Defects.Current pediatric reviews · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes of children operated for congenital heart diseases in Rwanda: a 14-year retrospective analysis.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025Article
- Prognostic Effects of Operation Age for Pediatric Patients with Supravalvar Aortic Stenosis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Pediatric Cardiology: Updates for Pediatrician.Indian journal of pediatrics · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital heart defects (CHD) are the most common form of birth anomalies. About one-fifth of these are critical requiring very early intervention, the classical examples being transposition of great arteries or obstructive total anomalous pulmonary venous connection. On the other hand, relatively milder and simpler lesions, such as small ventricular septal defects or mild pulmonary stenosis, may either not need intervention at all or intervened as and when deemed necessary. Apart from the cardiovascular effects, some CHDs can significantly affect the physical growth and neurodevelopment of the child. Each type of CHD has unique hemodynamic effects and the intervention is, by and large, timed based on the severity and natural history of each cardiac lesion. Some lesions have a "limited" time window beyond which they may become unsuitable for any intervention. Hence it is critical to intervene at the appropriate time so as to prevent the untoward effects of CHDs and at the same time to avoid unnecessary interventions.
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.