ArticlePloS one2021
Prevalence of the five newborn screening tests.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulse oximetry test for screening congenital heart diseases: a systematic review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Pooled it
- Barriers and Limitations in Neonatal Hearing and Vision Screening in Latin America: A Scoping Review.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Review
- An insight into Indonesia's progress for newborn screening program: What is currently going on.Heliyon · 2024Article
- The newborn screening tests in Brazil: regional and socioeconomic prevalence and inequalities in 2013 and 2019.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neonatal screening is essential for child health and has the following purposes: (1) pulse oximetry screening to evaluate congenital heart diseases; (2) red reflex examination to investigate eye diseases; (3) newborn hearing screening test to evaluate congenital hearing diseases; (4) tongue test to evaluate the lingual frenulum and identify communication and feeding problems; (5) the Guthrie test to screen for metabolic diseases. This study investigated the prevalence of the five neonatal screening tests and its associated institutional and socio-cultural factors using a cross-sectional study with 415 mother and baby binomials from public maternity hospitals in Natal, RN, Brazil in 2019. Pearson's chi-squared, Mann-Whitney and Poisson regression tests were used, with a significance of p ≤ 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval. The sample loss was 71 mothers (17%). The prevalence in the first week and at the end of 28 days was 93% and 99.5% (pulse oximetry screening), 60% and 97.6% (red reflex examination), 71.9% and 93.6% (Guthrie test), 35.5% and 68.2% (hearing screening test), and 19% and 48.9% (tongue test). Only 152 newborns (36.6%) underwent all five tests. The performance of the tests was associated in the final model (p ≤ 0.05) with the residence of the mothers in the state capital (PR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.18-1.56) and the provision of guidance for mothers about the five tests in maternity hospitals (PR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.08-1.67). None of the tests met full coverage, and regional inequities were identified indicating the need to restructure the institutions, training and qualification procedures to improve of the work processes and longitudinal care.
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.