ArticleJAMA health forum2026
Prenatal Syphilis Screening Mandates and Maternal Syphilis Case Detection.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Rates of congenital syphilis in the US have surged over the past decade, despite most states having long-standing mandates requiring clinicians to offer syphilis screening early in pregnancy. Gaps in screening coverage remain, and first-trimester screening alone may miss cases. Several professional bodies now recommend repeat screening in the third trimester and at delivery. Evidence on the impact of expanded prenatal syphilis screening mandates on case detection is limited. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of expanding prenatal syphilis screening mandates on syphilis case detection during pregnancy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Birth certificate data from 33 US states between 2012 and 2022 were analyzed using a staggered difference-in-differences design. Maternal syphilis case detection in 4 states that enacted mandates for third-trimester and delivery screening (Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Michigan) were compared with 29 control states without such mandates during this period. The new mandates required all pregnant people be offered third-trimester screening. Three of the states further required that individuals at high risk of syphilis infection be offered screening again at delivery, and 1 state required universal delivery screening. To ascertain whether expanded mandates were associated with changes in screening coverage, inpatient discharge records from 1 mandate expansion state (Georgia) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from December 2024 to September 2025. Exposures: Passage of a universal syphilis screening mandate in the third trimester and a high-risk or universal mandate at delivery between 2012 and 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Maternal syphilis case detection (cases per 100 000 live births) and the share of deliveries receiving syphilis screening. Results: The study sample included 16.3 million live births and 20 961 reported syphilis cases between 2012 and 2022 in 4 mandate expansion states and 29 control states. Expanded screening mandates were associated with a 26% (95% CI, 3-53) increase in maternal syphilis case detection in the first quarter after enactment. The increase in case detection attenuated thereafter and was no longer significant within 1 year (11%; 95% CI, -17 to 48; P = .48). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, expanded prenatal syphilis screening mandates may improve syphilis case detection in the near-term but are unlikely to have sustained impact without complementary efforts, such as those that facilitate clinician adherence and ensure patient access to and completion of treatment.
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.