ArticleJAMA network open2026
Universal Transcutaneous Bilirubin Screening in a Midwifery-Led Home Care Setting.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Picterus Jaundice Pro App for Neonatal Jaundice Screening by Parents: Prospective Mixed Methods Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
- Assessing Diagnostic Accuracy of a Handheld Point-of-Care Device for Quantifying Neonatal Bilirubin Levels: The BEAT Jaundice @Home Study.Neonatology · 2026Article
- Skin residual bilirubin volume: a physiologically informed framework for transcutaneous bilirubin interpretation in neonates.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Visual inspection is commonly the first-line screening method for hyperbilirubinemia in neonates cared for at home. However, it is unreliable and may delay treatment. Objective: To assess the clinical outcomes, costs, and user convenience associated with universal transcutaneous bilirubin (TCB) screening for detecting hyperbilirubinemia in a diverse neonatal population cared for at home. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective decision analytical model was conducted between July 11, 2021, and June 9, 2023, in 9 midwifery practices across the Netherlands. Neonates (gestational age ≥35 weeks) were eligible if they had their first midwife visit prior to postnatal day 6 and had not yet received phototherapy. Exposure: At each home visit, the midwife first undertook visual inspection and then performed TCB measurements on the neonate's sternum. Bilirubin was measured in blood when indicated by visual inspection and/or elevated TCB reading. Main Outcomes and Measures: The hypothesis was that TCB could replace visual inspection if (1) more neonates requiring treatment for hyperbilirubinemia were detected and (2) fewer heel pricks were needed. The 2 main outcomes were (1) blood bilirubin level greater than the national guideline's treatment threshold and (2) requiring a heel prick for bilirubin quantification. McNemar tests were used for both hypotheses. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a decision-tree analytic model. Results: Data from 2314 neonates (median [IQR] gestational age, 39 [39-40] weeks; 1172 [50.6%] male) were analyzed. Overall, 78 (3.4%) had a bilirubin level greater than the treatment threshold. Of these, 28 had been identified through TCB screening but missed by visual inspection (absolute risk difference, 28%; 95% CI, 13%-42%; P < .001). Although TCB missed 7 neonates identified through visual inspection, these were all attributable to either misinterpretation of TCB readings by the midwife or structural overestimation of blood bilirubin levels in one hospital laboratory. TCB screening led to 102 additional heel pricks vs visual inspection (244 vs 142; P < .001). Sensitivity analysis showed that when TCB screening was selectively applied only to neonates with any jaundice, additional heel pricks were reduced to 82 (P < .001), with no loss in diagnostic performance. Universal TCB screening saved €15 ($17) per neonate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytical model study of 2314 (near) full-term neonates, universal TCB screening among neonates cared for at home identified more neonates requiring treatment but required more heel pricks than visual inspection alone. Universal TCB screening was cost-effective compared with visual inspection. The additional required heel pricks decreased by selective TCB screening.
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.