4.7 Article

Estimated Number of Infants Detected and Missed by Critical Congenital Heart Defect Screening

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 135, 期 6, 页码 1000-1008

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-3662

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [PA 96043, PA 02081, FOA DD09-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2011, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services recommended universal screening of newborns for critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs), yet few estimates of the number of infants with CCHDs likely to be detected through universal screening exist. Our objective was to estimate the number of infants with nonsyndromic CCHDs in the United States likely to be detected (true positives) and missed (false negatives) through universal newborn CCHD screening. METHODS: We developed a simulation model based on estimates of birth prevalence, prenatal diagnosis, late detection, and sensitivity of newborn CCHD screening through pulse oximetry to estimate the number of true-positive and false-negative nonsyndromic cases of the 7 primary and 5 secondary CCHD screening targets identified through screening. RESULTS: We estimated that 875 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 705-1060) US infants with nonsyndromic CCHDs, including 470 (95% UI: 360-585) infants with primary CCHD screening targets, will be detected annually through newborn CCHD screening. An additional 880 (UI: 700-1080) false-negative screenings, including 280 (95% UI: 195-385) among primary screening targets, are expected. We estimated that similar numbers of CCHDs would be detected under scenarios comparing lower (similar to 19%) and higher (similar to 41%) than current prenatal detection prevalences. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of nonsyndromic CCHD cases are likely to be detected through universal CCHD screening; however, an equal number of false-negative screenings, primarily among secondary targets of screening, are likely to occur. Future efforts should document the true impact of CCHD screening in practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据