ReviewThe Lancet. Child & adolescent health2025
Universal newborn screening for congenital cytomegalovirus infection.
Review in The Lancet. Child & adolescent health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effectiveness of congenital toxoplasmosis treatment in minimizing hearing loss: A systematic review.Science progressPooled 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
- The Need for Universal Congenital Cytomegalovirus Screening.Pediatrics · 2026Article
- The Management of Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection in an Era of Universal Newborn CMV Screening.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Review
- Chain-specific remodeling of the γδ T-cell TCR repertoire in preterm infants with cCMV: a gestational-age-stratified case-control study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- 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
- Beyond hearing loss: exploring neurological and neurodevelopmental sequelae in asymptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- Prevalence of ocular and visual abnormalities following symptomatic and asymptomatic congenital CMV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Hearing Loss in Infants and Children with Asymptomatic Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection: An Update in Diagnosis, Screening and Treatment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Congenital Cytomegalovirus (cCMV) Infection as a Leading Cause of Pediatric Hearing Loss: Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the leading infectious cause of childhood disability, in particular sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Timeliness of diagnosis is crucial, since the presence of CMV in any compartment (eg, blood, urine, or saliva) after age 21 days can mean postnatal acquisition of infection, particularly in breastfed infants. Given these issues, there is considerable interest in implementation of screening programmes-either universal screening (where all newborns are tested) or targeted screening. Targeted screening is typically based on the outcome of a newborn hearing screen, and can be influenced in some strategies by findings of other signs suggestive of congenital CMV. Universal screening is likely to have the greatest overall benefit. Early identification of congenital CMV allows for interventions such as antiviral therapy (when indicated) and enables anticipatory audiological monitoring that facilitates timely detection of delayed-onset SNHL. However, there are debates about the effectiveness of screening programmes. Most infants with congenital CMV are unaffected and do not appear to be at risk for adverse neurodevelopment outcomes, except for SNHL. Screening can, therefore, raise unwarranted concern among parents and clinicians in these cases. The best clinical sample for diagnostic testing is unclear. PCR testing of saliva is sensitive but has a risk of yielding false-positive results in infants without congenital CMV. Resolving the technological issues has improved the sensitivity of dried blood spot (DBS) PCR but the technique remains suboptimum. An advantage to DBS PCR testing is that an infrastructure exists to add this test to existing newborn screening programmes. In this Review, the advantages and disadvantages of congenital CMV screening are discussed, along with high-priority areas for future research that will inform and direct this rapidly evolving field.
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.