Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35244731›Full record

ArticlePediatric cardiology2022

Providers' Attitudes to Proposed Changes in the Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening Algorithm.

Julia Claire Walters, Xiao Zhang, John Smith Hokanson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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.

Julia Claire WaltersUniversity of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Xiao ZhangDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, H6/516c, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
John Smith HokansonDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, H6/516c, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. jhokanson@wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0863-8282
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening for critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) in newborns based on a 2009 Swedish study has become the standard of care despite the complexity of the algorithm. A simplified algorithm which might increase the false-positive rate was proposed in 2020 but not formally endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. We sought to determine how the current protocol and the proposed changes are perceived by clinicians. We performed an anonymous survey of professionals involved in the care of newborns regarding their perception of the current and proposed CCHD screening algorithms. 335 responses were evaluated. Less than 2% of respondents were dissatisfied with the existing screening algorithm or felt it was difficult to perform. 47% endorsed and 12% opposed the adoption of the proposed modifications with those most familiar with the proposed changes more likely to endorse them. Although many providers would accept a higher false-positive rate in CCHD screening, those who would have to transfer a baby from the birth site for assessment after a failed CCHD screening were less tolerant of an increased false-positive rate. Although the existing CCHD screening mechanisms appear to be very well received, the proposed changes to the CCHD algorithm were viewed positively by many respondents. Changes in this algorithm would likely be better tolerated in those setting where the consequences of a failed CCHD screening are more easily addressed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelHeart Defects, CongenitalNeonatal ScreeningAlgorithmsHumansInfant, NewbornSurveys and QuestionnairesCongenital heart diseaseEchocardiographyNewborn screeningPulse oximetrySurvey

Identifiers

PMID35244731
OpenAlexW4214852696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.