Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34618229›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2022

Impact of pulse oximetry screening to detect congenital heart defects: 5 years' experience in a UK regional neonatal unit.

Yogen Singh, Si Emma Chen

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Yogen SinghDepartment of Paediatrics - Neonatology and Paediatric Cardiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, NICU, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 402, Biomedical Campus, CB2 0QQ, Cambridge, UK. yogen.singh@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5207-9019
Si Emma ChenSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Heart Defects, CongenitalNeonatal ScreeningHumansInfantInfant, NewbornOximetryProspective StudiesUnited KingdomCongenital heart defect (CHD)Critical congenital heart defect (CCHD)New-born infantPulse oximetry screening (POS)Screening

Identifiers

PMID34618229
PMCPMC8821483
OpenAlexW3203008075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.