↓ Skip to main content

Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
99 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011912.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria N Plana, Javier Zamora, Gautham Suresh, Luis Fernandez-Pineda, Shakila Thangaratinam, Andrew K Ewer

Abstract

Health outcomes are improved when newborn babies with critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) are detected before acute cardiovascular collapse. The main screening tests used to identify these babies include prenatal ultrasonography and postnatal clinical examination; however, even though both of these methods are available, a significant proportion of babies are still missed. Routine pulse oximetry has been reported as an additional screening test that can potentially improve detection of CCHD. • To determine the diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximetry as a screening method for detection of CCHD in asymptomatic newborn infants• To assess potential sources of heterogeneity, including:○ characteristics of the population: inclusion or exclusion of antenatally detected congenital heart defects;○ timing of testing: < 24 hours versus ≥ 24 hours after birth;○ site of testing: right hand and foot (pre-ductal and post-ductal) versus foot only (post-ductal);○ oxygen saturation: functional versus fractional;○ study design: retrospective versus prospective design, consecutive versus non-consecutive series; and○ risk of bias for the "flow and timing" domain of QUADAS-2. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library and the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj), up to March 2017. We searched the reference lists of all included articles and relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies not found through the electronic search. We applied no language restrictions. We selected studies that met predefined criteria for design, population, tests, and outcomes. We included cross-sectional and cohort studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximetry screening for diagnosis of CCHD in term and late preterm asymptomatic newborn infants. We considered all protocols of pulse oximetry screening (eg, different saturation thresholds to define abnormality, post-ductal only or pre-ductal and post-ductal measurements, test timing less than or greater than 24 hours). Reference standards were diagnostic echocardiography (echocardiogram) and clinical follow-up, including postmortem findings, mortality, and congenital anomaly databases. We extracted accuracy data for the threshold used in primary studies. We explored between-study variability and correlation between indices visually through use of forest and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used the bivariate model to calculate random-effects pooled sensitivity and specificity values. We investigated sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 457,202 participants). Nineteen studies provided data for the primary analysis (oxygen saturation threshold < 95% or ≤ 95%; N = 436,758 participants). The overall sensitivity of pulse oximetry for detection of CCHD was 76.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.5 to 82.0) (low certainty of the evidence). Specificity was 99.9% (95% CI 99.7 to 99.9), with a false-positive rate of 0.14% (95% CI 0.07 to 0.22) (high certainty of the evidence). Summary positive and negative likelihood ratios were 535.6 (95% CI 280.3 to 1023.4) and 0.24 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.31), respectively. These results showed that out of 10,000 apparently healthy late preterm or full-term newborn infants, six will have CCHD (median prevalence in our review). Screening by pulse oximetry will detect five of these infants as having CCHD and will miss one case. In addition, screening by pulse oximetry will falsely identify another 14 infants out of the 10,000 as having suspected CCHD when they do not have it.The false-positive rate for detection of CCHD was lower when newborn pulse oximetry was performed longer than 24 hours after birth than when it was performed within 24 hours (0.06%, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.13, vs 0.42%, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89; P = 0.027).Forest and ROC plots showed greater variability in estimated sensitivity than specificity across studies. We explored heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses and meta-regression of inclusion or exclusion of antenatally detected congenital heart defects, timing of testing, and risk of bias for the "flow and timing" domain of QUADAS-2, and we did not find an explanation for the heterogeneity in sensitivity. Pulse oximetry is a highly specific and moderately sensitive test for detection of CCHD with very low false-positive rates. Current evidence supports the introduction of routine screening for CCHD in asymptomatic newborns before discharge from the well-baby nursery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 <1%
Unknown 110 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 <1%
Unknown 110 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2019.
All research outputs
#222,925
of 13,606,339 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#532
of 10,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,796
of 271,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,606,339 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.