Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41878580›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2026

Registries and surveillance models used to screen neonates for congenital anomalies in LMIC settings: a scoping review.

Mahnoor Nawab, Hameeda Arif Arain, Maryam Sherwani, Katrine Aronsen, Aneeta Channar, Hakon Angell Bolkan, Heather Melanie R Ames, Lubna Samad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

8 authors.

Mahnoor NawabInteractive Research & Development (IRD), Karachi, Pakistan.
Hameeda Arif ArainInteractive Research & Development (IRD), Karachi, Pakistan.
Maryam SherwaniInteractive Research & Development (IRD), Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0925-1848
Katrine AronsenNorwegian Defence University College, Norwegian Defence University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9476-3951
Aneeta ChannarInteractive Research & Development (IRD), Karachi, Pakistan.
Hakon Angell BolkanNorwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Heather Melanie R AmesNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Lubna SamadInteractive Research & Development (IRD) Global, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To map and characterise congenital anomalies (CAs) registries and surveillance systems implemented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and to examine their reported effectiveness, challenges and potential for replication. Design: Scoping review conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, Epistemonikos, Global Index Medicus, EMBASE, PakMediNet, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to April 2025. Eligibility criteria: Studies describing registries, surveillance systems or screening programmes for externally visible CAs in neonates or stillbirths implemented in LMIC settings were included. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted on publication characteristics, registry design, surveillance methods, screening personnel, diagnostic approaches and anomaly types. Findings were synthesised descriptively and mapped across WHO regions. Results: Of 12 328 records identified, 39 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were hospital-based (79%) and regional in scope (74%). Prospective surveillance was used in 79% of studies, with physical examination as the primary screening method. Doctors conducted screening in 41% of studies, while 13% employed mixed cadres including nurses, midwives and health workers. Nine sustained national or subnational registries and two multinational surveillance networks were identified. Neurological, musculoskeletal and cardiovascular anomalies were most frequently reported. Conclusions: CAs surveillance in LMICs is predominantly hospital-based, with limited community-level coverage. Sustainable registries demonstrate feasibility when integrated into existing health systems, supported by trained frontline workers and focused on pragmatic datasets. Future efforts should prioritise scalability, community integration and linkage to care pathways.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningPopulation SurveillanceScoping Review

Identifiers

PMID41878580
PMCPMC13007095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.