ArticleAnnals of pediatric cardiology
Clinical score to detect congenital heart defects: Concept of second screening.
Article in Annals of pediatric cardiology. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- [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
- Based on C-CHEWS study on the application value of comprehensive perioperative nursing based on scoring in critically ill children with pediatric cardiovascular surgery.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Spectrum of Heart Diseases in Children in a National Cardiac Referral Center Tanzania, Eastern Africa: A Six-Year Overview.Global heart · 2024Observational
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Physical Examination and Pulse Oximetry for Critical Congenital Cardiac Disease Screening in Newborns.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Role of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor as a Potential Biomarker in Congenital Heart Defects: A Systematic Review.The journal of Tehran Heart Center · 2023Review
- WDR62 variants contribute to congenital heart disease by inhibiting cardiomyocyte proliferation.Clinical and translational medicine · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeonatal screening for congenital heart defects at birth can miss some heart defects, sometimes few critical ones, and the scenario is even worse in those neonates who had never undergone a neonatal checkup (home deliveries). Immunization clinic can serve as a unique opportunity as the second checkpoint for the screening of the children. A history- and examination-based test can serve as an effective tool to screen out children with heart defects. AIMS AND
objectivesThe aim of this study was to establish the sensitivity and specificity of a clinical screening tool for the identification of congenital heart defects at the first visit of an infant after birth for immunization. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a cross-sectional observational study which the consecutive children presenting at 6 weeks of age for immunization or any child presenting for the first time (outborn delivery) till 6 months of age in the immunization clinic were subjected to detailed history and examination and findings were recorded on a predesigned pro forma and a clinical score was calculated. All these children were then subjected to echocardiography for confirmation of the diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD), and the sensitivity and specificity of the test were recorded. OBSERVATIONS AND
resultsA total of 970 babies were screened, out of them 31 were diagnosed with CHD and 18 had undergone neonatal screening at birth. A clinical score of 3 or more had more chances of detecting CHD. The sensitivity of the cutoff score as 3 was 96.77% and specificity was 98.72, with a positive predictive value of 71.43%, a negative predictive value of 99.89%, and an accuracy of 98.66%.
conclusionsThe history- and examination-based tool is an effective method for early identification of CHD and can easily be used by peripheral workers working in remote places with poor resources enabling prompt referral.
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.