ArticleAmerican heart journal2020
Rationale and design of CH STRONG: Congenital Heart Survey To Recognize Outcomes, Needs, and well-beinG.
Article in American heart journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics of children with congenital heart defects and their caregivers in three U.S. sites: the Congenital Heart Survey To Recognize Outcomes Needs and well-beinG of KIDS (CHSTRONG KIDS).Progress in pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Racial and Ethnic Differences in Healthcare Access and Utilization Among Adults With Congenital Heart Defects in the Congenital Heart Survey to Recognize Outcomes, Needs and Well-Being (CH STRONG).Birth defects research · 2026Article
- Reproductive health outcomes of congenital heart disease survivors: A report from the congenital heart disease project to understand lifelong survivor experience (CHD PULSE study).American heart journal · 2026Article
- A detailed profiling study from the national Australian Congenital Heart Disease registry: rationale and design.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025Article
- Educational Attainment and Employment Status of Adults Living With Congenital Heart Disease in the United States, CH STRONG 2016-2019.Birth defects research · 2025Article
- Comorbidities and Healthcare Utilization Among Young Adults With Congenital Heart Defects by Down Syndrome Status-Congenital Heart Survey to Recognize Outcomes, Needs, and wellbeinG, 2016-2019.Birth defects research · 2025Article
- Rationale and design of CHD PULSE: Congenital Heart Disease Project to Understand Lifelong Survivor Experience.American heart journal · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Adults With Congenital Heart Disease in the Congenital Heart Initiative Registry.JAMA network open · 2024Observational
- Health Insurance Status and Access to Healthcare Among Young Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: from the Congenital Heart Survey To Recognize Outcomes, Needs and Well-beinG (CH STRONG), 2016-2019.Pediatric cardiology · 2024Article
- Neighborhood social deprivation and healthcare utilization, disability, and comorbidities among young adults with congenital heart defects: Congenital heart survey to recognize outcomes, needs, and well-being 2016-2019.Birth defects research · 2023Article
- Survival From Birth Until Young Adulthood Among Individuals With Congenital Heart Defects: CH STRONG.Circulation · 2023Article
- Healthcare and Socioeconomic Outcomes Among Young Adults With Congenital Heart Defects and Functional Cognitive Disabilities, CH STRONG 2016 to 2019.The American journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Reproductive Health Counseling and Concerns Among Women with Congenital Heart Defects With and Without Disabilities.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2023Article
- Cardiology Care and Loss to Follow-Up Among Adults With Congenital Heart Defects in CH STRONG.The American journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Reproductive Health of Women with Congenital Heart Defects.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2023Review
- Prevention and awareness of birth defects across the lifespan using examples from congenital heart defects and spina bifida.Birth defects research · 2022Article
- Advance Care Directives Among a Population-Based Sample of Young Adults with Congenital Heart Defects, CH STRONG, 2016-2019.Pediatric cardiology · 2021Article
- Disability Among Young Adults With Congenital Heart Defects: Congenital Heart Survey to Recognize Outcomes, Needs, and Well-Being 2016-2019.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Improving Longitudinal Outcomes, Efficiency, and Equity in the Care of Patients With Congenital Heart Disease.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2021Article
- Comorbidities Among Young Adults with Congenital Heart Defects: Results from the Congenital Heart Survey To Recognize Outcomes, Needs, and well-beinG - Arizona, Arkansas, and Metropolitan Atlanta, 2016-2019.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Studies of outcomes among adults with congenital heart defects (CHDs) have focused on those receiving cardiac care, limiting generalizability. The Congenital Heart Survey To Recognize Outcomes, Needs, and well-beinG (CH STRONG) will assess comorbidities, health care utilization, quality of life, and social and educational outcomes from a US population-based sample of young adults living with CHD.
methodsIndividuals with CHD born between 1980 and 1997 were identified using active, population-based birth defects surveillance systems from 3 US locations (Arkansas [AR]; Arizona [AZ]; and Atlanta, Georgia [GA]) linked to death records. Individuals with current contact information responded to mailed survey materials during 2016 to 2019. Respondents and nonrespondents were compared using χ
resultsSites obtained contact information for 74.6% of the 9,312 eligible individuals alive at recruitment. Of those, 1,656 returned surveys, either online (18.1%) or via paper (81.9%), for a response rate of 23.9% (AR: 18.3%; AZ: 30.7%; Atlanta, GA: 28.0%; P value < .01). For 20.0% of respondents, a proxy completed the survey, with 63.9% reporting that the individual with CHD was mentally unable. Among respondents and nonrespondents, respectively, sex (female: 54.0% and 47.3%), maternal race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white: 74.3% and 63.0%), CHD severity (severe: 33.8% and 27.9%), and noncardiac congenital anomalies (34.8% and 38.9%) differed significantly (P value < .01); birth year (1991-1997: 56.0% and 57.5%) and presence of Down syndrome (9.2% and 8.9%) did not differ.
conclusionsCH STRONG will provide the first multisite, population-based findings on long-term outcomes among the growing population of US adults with CHD.
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.