ReviewEClinicalMedicine2024
Current evidence gaps to support systematic cytomegalovirus screening in pregnancy.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of congenital cytomegalovirus infection among families and caregivers: A qualitative analysis of responses to a public consultation on newborn screening in the UK.Journal of health services research & policy · 2026Article
- Authors' reply: comments regarding "Current evidence gaps to support systematic cytomegalovirus screening in pregnancy".EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Comments regarding "Current evidence gaps to support systematic cytomegalovirus screening in pregnancy".EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Current status of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of congenital cytomegalovirus disease: a call to action.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Cytomegalovirus Infection Screening in Pregnant Women from Northwest Romania: Results of a 15-Year Follow-Up Program.Microorganisms · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The benefits of screening for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection during pregnancy remain a topic of debate. To date, no randomized trial has compared the impact of screening versus routine management on the prevention of severe sequelae in newborns. Furthermore, it is unclear what actions can be taken in case of a positive screening given that there is limited evidence of effective interventions as no treatments showed significant effect on the frequency of congenital cytomegalovirus infections and, as additional challenge, the window for effective treatment initiation after maternal infection is narrow, estimated to be as short as five weeks. Universal screening of all pregnant women could lead to a high number of false positives. There are also concerns regarding the cost-effectiveness of universal screening and the capacity of healthcare professionals that may struggle to manage the increased workload, and we argue that the conditions for implementing such a programme are not yet met. In this Viewpoint we aim at highlighting these challenges and stimulating the forthcoming discussion on how to fill the gaps before CMV screening in pregnancy could be adopted as a standard practice.
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.