ArticleMaternal and child health journal2022
Risk-Factor Based Lead Screening and Correlation with Blood Lead Levels in Pregnancy.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Red cell transfusion related toxic metals exposure for fetus and newborns: an under-recognized public health concern.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Universal Lead Testing in Pregnancy: A Call to Action.Pediatrics · 2024Article
- The construction and validation of a lead exposure screening tool for pregnant women in Thailand (ThaiL8Is).Heliyon · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLead exposure has devastating neurologic consequences for children and may begin in utero. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends prenatal lead screening using a risk factor-based approach rather than universal blood testing. The clinical utility of this approach has not been studied. We evaluated a risk-factor based questionnaire to detect elevated blood lead levels in pregnancy.
methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of a cohort of parturients enrolled to evaluate the association of lead with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. We included participants in this analysis if they had a singleton pregnancy ≥ 34 weeks' gestation with blood lead levels recorded. Participants completed a lead risk factor survey modified for pregnancy. We defined elevated blood lead as ≥ 2 μg/dL, as this was the clinically reportable level.
resultsOf 102 participants enrolled in the cohort, 92 had blood lead measured as part of the study. The vast majority (78%) had 1 or more risk factor for elevated lead using the questionnaire yet none had clinical blood lead testing during routine visits. Only two participants (2.2%) had elevated blood lead levels. The questionnaire had high sensitivity but poor specificity for predicting detectable lead levels (sensitivity 100%, specificity 22%). CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prenatal risk-factor based lead screening appears underutilized in practice and does not adequately discriminate between those with and without elevated blood levels. Given the complexity of the risk factor-based approach and underutilization, the benefit and cost-effectiveness of universal lead testing should be further explored.
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.