ArticleBMJ global health2026
Developing and validating a neonatal screening tool for congenital anomalies to be used in low- and middle-income country settings.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCongenital anomalies are among the common health problems faced by children in low- and middle-income countries, contributing substantially to infant mortality rates. Due to limited access to newborn screening programmes in most of the resource-limited settings, many congenital anomalies go undiagnosed and untreated, leading to adverse outcomes. This study aimed to develop and validate a newborn screening tool for congenital anomalies for use in resource-limited settings.
methodsA Delphi approach was used to assemble a group of experts and develop the screening tool. Tool validation was done by applying it to a reasonable number of neonates who were delivered and/or admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College. Data were collected using Kobo Collect and then exported to Microsoft Excel and SPSS V.26 for analysis. Frequencies, percentages, mean and SD were used to describe categorical results. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening tool were calculated to assess its validity.
resultsA total of 1160 neonates were screened for congenital anomalies, of which 673 (58%) were male. The mean age of the newborns was 26.9±33 hours. Term newborns accounted for 898 (77.4%) of the study population. The prevalence of congenital anomalies in our series was 5.7%, with the most involved body systems being the central nervous system (33.7%), genitourinary (18.5%), gastrointestinal (11%) and musculoskeletal (11%). More than one anomaly was diagnosed in 11 (13.6%) neonates. The sensitivity and specificity of this tool were 86.4% and 97.8%, respectively. Furthermore, the positive and negative predictive values of the screening tool were 70.4% and 99.2%, respectively.
conclusionCongenital anomalies are not rare findings in our hospital. The neonatal screening tool, which was developed through this study, has commendable validity results in addition to being low-cost and easily implementable.
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.