ArticleBMJ public health2026
Registries and surveillance models used to screen neonates for congenital anomalies in LMIC settings: a scoping review.
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.
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.
- Patterns and risk factors of birth defects in Bangladesh: evidence from a neonatal intensive care unit.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.