Notice bibliographique
Résumé
What Is the Issue? Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) is estimated to affect between 0.2% and 2.4% of newborns worldwide, and may cause long-term effects, including hearing loss and neurodevelopmental disability. Newborn screening for cCMV can identify affected neonates and provide an opportunity for early treatment, which may reduce any long-term effects from infection. We wanted to know if universal newborn screening is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for identifying and managing cCMV. What Did We Do? We identified and summarized published literature comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of universal newborn screening with either targeted newborn screening or no screening for congenital cytomegalovirus in neonates. We also identified and summarized published, evidence-based guidelines that make recommendations concerning the use of newborn screening for congenital cytomegalovirus to help inform decisions considering the use of this intervention. An information specialist searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature sources published between January 1, 2014, and March 19, 2024. The search was limited to English-language documents. One reviewer screened articles for eligibility based on predefined criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and narratively summarized the findings. What Did We Find? Evidence from 1 prospective cohort study in the US found that, compared to universal newborn screening for cCMV, targeted newborn screening failed to identify a significant proportion of neonates who developed hearing loss associated with infection. Three cost-effectiveness evaluations concluded that universal newborn screening for cCMV was cost-effective when compared to targeted newborn screening or no screening. None of these analyses were specific to the Canadian context. While 1 of 3 evidence-based guidelines identified by this review makes a recommendation favouring universal newborn screening for cCMV, 2 evidence-based guidelines recommend against the implementation of universal newborn screening for cCMV (including 1 from the Canadian context), generally citing a lack of sufficient clinical evidence. What Does This Mean? The included cost-effectiveness studies and evidence-based guidelines in this report emphasize that limited clinical evidence is currently available to inform decision-making concerning newborn screening for cCMV. Jurisdictions where universal newborn screening for cCMV has been implemented provide an opportunity for clinical research to support and inform future decision-making. The current limitation of available clinical data describing newborn screening for cCMV will require decision-makers to draw from a broader set of inputs and sources than those available from empirical studies.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».