ArticlePediatric cardiology2022
Providers' Attitudes to Proposed Changes in the Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening Algorithm.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.