CANADIAN PAEDIATRICIANS’ PERCEPTIONS OF NEONATAL PULSE OXIMETRY SCREENING
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Neonatal pulse oximetry screening (NPOS) has been shown to enhance the detection of Critical Congenital Heart Disease (CCHD) by detecting levels of hypoxemia otherwise undetectable by clinical evaluation. Earlier detection of CCHD decreases morbidity, mortality and disability, with studies estimating that 30% of CCHDs are diagnosed after 3 days of age and 25% of babies are discharged prior to diagnosis. While the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed NPOS in 2012, the status of screening in Canada is unknown. DESIGN/METHODS: A one-time survey was circulated by CPSP to obtain information about Canadian paediatricians’ perceptions of NPOS and the extent to which NPOS is utilized in Canada. RESULTS: There were 660/2601 responses (25% response rate). 74% of all responders and 83% of general pediatrician responders were aware of NPOS, and 53% of the general paediatrician responders were aware of the AAP NPOS protocol. 26% (135) of the responders were using NPOS. Of the responders who did not screen, 64% (246) supported developing NPOS at their centre, 31% (119) were undecided and <5% (18) were against implementation. When given a list of barriers to developing a NPOS program, the need for a CPS statement (47%), concerns for false positives (54%), and insufficient nursing resources (41%) were the most common reasons selected by the responders. Of the responders with NPOS programs, 11% believed it was part of a provincial program, while for the majority (48%) it was not or was unknown (41%). The arm and foot were tested in 69% of programs with NPOS while 13% of programs checked the foot only. The paediatrician was called for abnormal results in 91% of the protocols. Of the responders, 77% had access to neonatal echocardiography in their centre (54%) or in their city (23%), with similar access to cardiology consultation (46% in their centre, 23% in their city). In the last 2 years, 36% (189) of the responders had been involved in cases of newborns with CCHD who were not detected by prenatal ultrasound or newborn physical examination. Of these, 71% (140) were diagnosed after neonatal discharge and 52% required resuscitation, 12% dying before intervention. CONCLUSION: The majority of the responders to this CPSP survey were aware of and supported developing NPOS at their centres while only a small fraction was currently screening. The CPS can play a larger role in helping with the application and adoption of NPOS to enhance detection of CCHD in Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».