SynthesisNeonatology2025
Optimal Strategies for Screening Common Birth Defects in Children of Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Neonatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antenatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Repeat community-based screening for school-age congenital heart disease: impact on the detection of cases requiring treatment in resource-limited settings.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2026Article
- Article
- Developing and validating a neonatal screening tool for congenital anomalies to be used in low- and middle-income country settings.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Article
- Spectrum of congenital anomalies detected through anatomy ultrasound at a referral hospital in Ghana.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Neonatal Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Fresh Look.Neonatology · 2025Article
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
introductionCongenital anomalies are one of the major causes of the global burden of diseases, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. This review assesses the prenatal and postnatal screening methods and compares the prevalence of major congenital anomalies in LMICs. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases of systematic reviews, clinical trials.gov for relevant studies using Medical Subject Headings and keywords. We categorized the studies into different systems and screening methods depending on the time the tests were conducted (prenatal or postnatal). The studies were then subjected to detailed descriptive analysis.
resultsA total of 59 studies were selected for analysis; these focused on screening methods for congenital anomalies and compared their prevalence with regards to different systems. The most common screening techniques both prenatal and postnatal included antenatal ultrasound, fetal echocardiography, pulse oximetry, and clinical examination. The most common congenital abnormalities involved the central nervous system (neural tube defects) and musculoskeletal (clubfoot), followed by gastrointestinal (omphalocele and gastroschisis) and cardiovascular (structural heart defect). Overall, different systems had varying prevalences of different birth defects, ranging from 0.28 to 8.5%. In contrast, the prevalence of musculoskeletal system disorders varied from 1.01% to 3.96%, in the cardiovascular system from 0.57% to 10.4%, and in the urogenital group from 0.83% to 5.9%.
conclusionThe review highlights the lack of screening programs and studies, especially in the primary and secondary care settings in LMICs, and limited studies do indicate a high burden of various congenital anomalies. There is a need for guidelines and programs in global maternal and child health programs to include timely screening and management of common birth defects in LMICs.
introductionCongenital anomalies are one of the major causes of the global burden of diseases, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. This review assesses the prenatal and postnatal screening methods and compares the prevalence of major congenital anomalies in LMICs. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases of systematic reviews, clinical trials.gov for relevant studies using Medical Subject Headings and keywords. We categorized the studies into different systems and screening methods depending on the time the tests were conducted (prenatal or postnatal). The studies were then subjected to detailed descriptive analysis.
resultsA total of 59 studies were selected for analysis; these focused on screening methods for congenital anomalies and compared their prevalence with regards to different systems. The most common screening techniques both prenatal and postnatal included antenatal ultrasound, fetal echocardiography, pulse oximetry, and clinical examination. The most common congenital abnormalities involved the central nervous system (neural tube defects) and musculoskeletal (clubfoot), followed by gastrointestinal (omphalocele and gastroschisis) and cardiovascular (structural heart defect). Overall, different systems had varying prevalences of different birth defects, ranging from 0.28 to 8.5%. In contrast, the prevalence of musculoskeletal system disorders varied from 1.01% to 3.96%, in the cardiovascular system from 0.57% to 10.4%, and in the urogenital group from 0.83% to 5.9%.
conclusionThe review highlights the lack of screening programs and studies, especially in the primary and secondary care settings in LMICs, and limited studies do indicate a high burden of various congenital anomalies. There is a need for guidelines and programs in global maternal and child health programs to include timely screening and management of common birth defects in LMICs.
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.