Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34941658›Full record

ReviewTropical medicine and infectious disease2021

Screening for Chagas Disease during Pregnancy in the United States-A Literature Review.

Elizabeth G Livingston, Ryan Duggal, Sarah Dotters-Katz

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth G LivingstonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1642-5516
Ryan DuggalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Sarah Dotters-KatzDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Obstetrician-gynecologists in the United States have little clinical experience with the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of Chagas disease. The number of US parturients born in Central and South America has continued to increase over the last 20 years, making US obstetricians more and more likely to care for Chagas-infected mothers who may never be identified until dealing with long-term consequences of the disease. A literature search demonstrates that few US obstetric care providers recognize the risk of vertical transmission for the neonate and the missed opportunity of infant treatment to decrease disease prevalence. Most women will be asymptomatic during pregnancy, as will their neonates, making routine laboratory screening a necessity for the identification of at-risk neonates. While the benefits of treating asymptomatic women identified in pregnancy are not as clear as the benefits for the infants, future health screenings for evidence of the progression of Chagas disease may be beneficial to these families. The literature suggests that screening for Chagas in pregnancy in the US can be done in a cost-effective way. When viewed through an equity lens, this condition disproportionately affects families of lower socioeconomic means. Improved education of healthcare providers and appropriate resources for diagnosis and treatment can improve this disparity in health outcomes.

Indexed as

Chagas diseasecongenital infectionmaternal screeningpregnancyvertical transmission

Identifiers

PMID34941658
PMCPMC8704518
OpenAlexW3216114309

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.