Observational studyHospital pediatrics2022
The Association Between Routine Car Seat Screening and Subsequent Health Care Utilization.
Observational study in Hospital pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predischarge Car Seat Tolerance Screening in Preterm and At-Risk Full-Term Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2026Pooled it
- Car seat tolerance screen failure in the neonatal intensive care unit: clinical, oxygen saturation and heart rate analysis.Pediatric research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe American Academy of Pediatrics recommends preterm newborns undergo car seat tolerance screening (CSTS) before discharge despite limited evidence supporting the practice. We examined subsequent health care utilization in screened and unscreened late preterm and low birth weight newborns.
methodsThis observational study included late preterm (34-36 weeks) and term low birth weight (<2268 g) newborns born between 2014 and 2018 at 4 hospitals with policies recommending CSTS for these infants. Birth hospitalization length of stay (LOS) in addition to 30-day hospital revisits and brief resolving unexplained events were examined. Unadjusted and adjusted rates were compared among 3 groups: not screened, pass, and fail.
resultsOf 5222 newborns, 3163 (61%) were discharged from the nursery and 2059 (39%) from the NICU or floor. Screening adherence was 91%, and 379 of 4728 (8%) screened newborns failed the initial screen. Compared with unscreened newborns, adjusted LOS was similar for newborns who passed the CSTS (+5.1 hours; -2.2-12.3) but significantly longer for those who failed (+16.1; 5.6-26.7). This differed by screening location: nursery = +12.6 (9.1-16.2) versus NICU/floor = +71.2 (28.3-114.1) hours. Hospital revisits did not significantly differ by group: not screened = 7.3% (reference), pass = 5.2% (aOR 0.79; 0.44-1.42), fail = 4.4% (aOR 0.65; 0.28-1.51).
conclusionsHospital adherence to CSTS recommendations was high, and failed screens were relatively common. Routine CSTS was not associated with reduced health care utilization and may prolong hospital LOS, particularly in the NICU/floor. Prospective trials are needed to evaluate this routine practice for otherwise low-risk infants.
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.