Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2022
Impact of pulse oximetry screening to detect congenital heart defects: 5 years' experience in a UK regional neonatal unit.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 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
- Complex Screening for Congenital Cardiovascular Malformations.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Pulse Oximetry Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Disease: A Four-Year Experience in Qatar.Cureus · 2026Article
- Should Dual Pulse Oximetry Screening Be Used in Neonates? The Insights from the CHOOSE Study.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association · 2026Article
- Performing Pulse Oximetry Screening in the Delivery Room Identified Newborn Infants Who Required Early Medical Attention.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Neonatal Oxygen Saturation From a Moderate Altitude to Below Sea Level: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Newborn Screening for Congenital Heart Disease: A Five-Year Study in Shanghai.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Missed or Delayed Diagnosis of Heart Disease by the General Pediatrician.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Stem-Cell Derived Exosomal microRNAs as Biomarkers and Therapeutics for Pediatric Cardiovascular Disease.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- The Role of Newborn Pulse Oximetry Screening for Detecting Critical Congenital Heart Defects: A Narrative Review.Current pediatric reviews · 2025Review
- The Critical Role of Pulse Oximetry Screening for Congenital Heart Disease and Patent Ductus Arteriosus in Newborns.Cureus · 2024Article
- Automated analysis of heart sound signals in screening for structural heart disease in children.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Recent Advances in Hydrogel-Based 3D Bioprinting and Its Potential Application in the Treatment of Congenital Heart Disease.Biomolecules · 2024Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulse oximetry screening (POS) has been shown to be an effective, non-invasive investigation that can detect up to 50-70% of previously undiagnosed congenital heart defects (CHDs). The aims of this study were to assess the accuracy of POS in detection of CHDs and its impact on clinical practice. All eligible newborn infants born between 1 Jan 2015 and 31 Dec 2019 in a busy regional neonatal unit were included in this prospective observational study. A positive POS was classified as two separate measurements of oxygen saturation < 95%, or a difference of > 2% between pre- and post-ductal circulations. Overall, 23,614 infants had documented POS results. One hundred eighty nine (0.8%) infants had a true positive result: 6 had critical CHDs, 9 serious or significant CHDs, and a further 156/189 (83%) infants had significant non-cardiac conditions. Forty-three infants who had a normal POS were later diagnosed with the following categories of CHDs post-hospital discharge: 1 critical, 15 serious, 20 significant and 7 non-significant CHDs. POS sensitivity for detection of critical CHD was 85.7%, whereas sensitivity was only 33% for detection of major CHDs (critical and serious) needing surgery during infancy; specificity was 99.3%.Conclusion: Pulse oximetry screening showed moderate to high sensitivity in detection of undiagnosed critical CHDs; however, it failed to detect two-third of major CHDs. Our study further emphasises the significance of adopting routine POS to detect critical CHDs in the clinical practice. However, it also highlights the need to develop new, innovative methods, such as perfusion index, to detect other major CHDs missed by current screening tools. What is Known: • Pulse oximetry screening is cost effective, acceptable, easy to perform and has moderate sensitivity and high specificity in detection of critical congenital heart defects. • Pulse oximetry screening has been implemented many countries including USA for detection of critical congenital heart defects, but it is not currently recommended by the UK National Screening Committee. What is New: • To our knowledge, this is the first study describing postnatal detection and presentation of all the infants with congenital heart defects over a period of 5 years, including those not detected on the pulse oximetry screening, on the clinical practice. • It emphasises that further research required to detect critical congenital heart defects and other major CHDs which can be missed on the screening tools currently employed in clinical practice.
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.