ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
A Geographically Weighted Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Newborn Cytomegalovirus Screening.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative diagnostic performance of saliva PCR and dried blood spot PCR for congenital cytomegalovirus detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of reflexive, hearing-targeted congenital cytomegalovirus screening at a high-volume center.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Hearing Screening-Driven Investigation of Newborns for Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection at a German University Hospital.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Pediatric hearing loss in the universal newborn hearing screening era: etiologies, risk indicators, and clinical phenotypes.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Review
- Cytomegalovirus in Pregnancy: Effects on the Developing Embryo and Fetus, Diagnosis and Treatment: Where to Go Now? A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Current status of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of congenital cytomegalovirus disease: a call to action.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection in Malaysia: A Scoping Review, Clinical Insights and Future Directions.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2025Review
- Connecting research and community: a methodological framework for investigating CMV transmission in childcare settings.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Newborn Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus (cCMV) Infection: Universal, Targeted, Expanded-Targeted, or None-of-the-Above?Neonatology today · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early identification of newborns with congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) is necessary to provide antiviral therapy and other interventions that can improve outcomes. Prior research demonstrates that universal newborn CMV screening would be the most cost-effective approach to identifying newborns who are infected. CMV is not uniformly prevalent, and it is uncertain whether universal screening would remain cost-effective in lower-prevalence neighborhoods. Our aim was to identify geographic heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of universal newborn CMV screening by combining a geospatial analysis with a preexisting cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: This study used the CMV testing results and zip code location data of 96 785 newborns in 7 metropolitan areas who had been tested for CMV as part of the CMV and Hearing Multicenter Screening study. A hierarchical bayesian generalized additive model was constructed to evaluate geographic variability in the odds of CMV. The zip code-level odds of CMV were then used to weight the results of a previously published model evaluating universal CMV screening vs symptom-targeted screening. Results: The odds of CMV were heterogeneous over large geographic scales, with the highest odds in the southeastern United States. Universal screening was more cost-effective and afforded more averted cases of severe hearing loss than targeted testing. Universal screening remained the most cost-effective option even in areas with the lowest CMV prevalence. Conclusions: Universal newborn CMV screening is cost-effective regardless of underlying CMV prevalence and is the preferred strategy to reduce morbidity from congenital CMV.
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.