Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40792436›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in infectious diseases2025

Current status of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of congenital cytomegalovirus disease: a call to action.

Heather Bailey, Helen Payne, Hermione Lyall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Heather BaileyInstitute for Global Health, University College London (UCL).
Helen PayneSection of Paediatric Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Hermione LyallDepartment of Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewGlobally, sequelae of congenital CMV (CCMV) impact an estimated 350 000 children born annually. In this review, we consider new evidence across primary, secondary and tertiary prevention approaches, and remaining evidence gaps. RECENT

findingsEducation on hygiene precautions can reduce risk of primary CMV acquisition in pregnancy, and may have a role in some settings in reducing CCMV cases resulting from nonprimary infection, but public and health worker knowledge and awareness remains low. Evidence that valaciclovir treatment can reduce CMV vertical transmission has led to renewed interest in antenatal CMV screening in some high-income countries over recent years, although there is a lack of recommendation in most guidelines and significant evidence gaps remain. Newborn CCMV screening has been adopted in some states/provinces in Canada/USA, with first results recently published. Newborn prognostic scoring systems are evolving, with potential for more effective targeting of newborn treatment and tertiary prevention of CCMV disease. SUMMARY: We make suggestions for clinical practice and research, particularly to address evidence gaps around: safety and effectiveness of antenatal CMV screening and antiviral prophylaxis; findings relating to detection of nonprimary infection in pregnancy; new prognostic neonatal scoring systems; and learning from follow-up of children born into state-wide universal CMV screening programmes.

Indexed as

Cytomegalovirus InfectionsInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPrimary PreventionTertiary PreventionAntiviral AgentsFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancySecondary PreventionAntiviral Agentsantiviralscongenital cytomegalovirusdeafnessneurodisabilitypreventionscreening

Identifiers

PMID40792436
PMCPMC12404617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.