MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403750060 · doi:10.1159/000541697

Optimal Strategies for Screening Common Birth Defects in Children of Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4403750060 on OpenAlexaff
Umaima Zaki, Saqib Hamid Qazi, Urooj Shamim, Jai K Das, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueNeonatology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicineGastroschisisOmphaloceleCINAHLPediatricsLow and middle income countriesMEDLINEPrenatal carePregnancyObstetricsDeveloping countryFetusPsychological interventionPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Congenital anomalies are one of the major causes of the global burden of diseases, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. This review assesses the prenatal and postnatal screening methods and compares the prevalence of major congenital anomalies in LMICs. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases of systematic reviews, clinical trials.gov for relevant studies using Medical Subject Headings and keywords. We categorized the studies into different systems and screening methods depending on the time the tests were conducted (prenatal or postnatal). The studies were then subjected to detailed descriptive analysis. RESULTS: A total of 59 studies were selected for analysis; these focused on screening methods for congenital anomalies and compared their prevalence with regards to different systems. The most common screening techniques both prenatal and postnatal included antenatal ultrasound, fetal echocardiography, pulse oximetry, and clinical examination. The most common congenital abnormalities involved the central nervous system (neural tube defects) and musculoskeletal (clubfoot), followed by gastrointestinal (omphalocele and gastroschisis) and cardiovascular (structural heart defect). Overall, different systems had varying prevalences of different birth defects, ranging from 0.28 to 8.5%. In contrast, the prevalence of musculoskeletal system disorders varied from 1.01% to 3.96%, in the cardiovascular system from 0.57% to 10.4%, and in the urogenital group from 0.83% to 5.9%. CONCLUSION: The review highlights the lack of screening programs and studies, especially in the primary and secondary care settings in LMICs, and limited studies do indicate a high burden of various congenital anomalies. There is a need for guidelines and programs in global maternal and child health programs to include timely screening and management of common birth defects in LMICs. INTRODUCTION: Congenital anomalies are one of the major causes of the global burden of diseases, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. This review assesses the prenatal and postnatal screening methods and compares the prevalence of major congenital anomalies in LMICs. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases of systematic reviews, clinical trials.gov for relevant studies using Medical Subject Headings and keywords. We categorized the studies into different systems and screening methods depending on the time the tests were conducted (prenatal or postnatal). The studies were then subjected to detailed descriptive analysis. RESULTS: A total of 59 studies were selected for analysis; these focused on screening methods for congenital anomalies and compared their prevalence with regards to different systems. The most common screening techniques both prenatal and postnatal included antenatal ultrasound, fetal echocardiography, pulse oximetry, and clinical examination. The most common congenital abnormalities involved the central nervous system (neural tube defects) and musculoskeletal (clubfoot), followed by gastrointestinal (omphalocele and gastroschisis) and cardiovascular (structural heart defect). Overall, different systems had varying prevalences of different birth defects, ranging from 0.28 to 8.5%. In contrast, the prevalence of musculoskeletal system disorders varied from 1.01% to 3.96%, in the cardiovascular system from 0.57% to 10.4%, and in the urogenital group from 0.83% to 5.9%. CONCLUSION: The review highlights the lack of screening programs and studies, especially in the primary and secondary care settings in LMICs, and limited studies do indicate a high burden of various congenital anomalies. There is a need for guidelines and programs in global maternal and child health programs to include timely screening and management of common birth defects in LMICs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeonatologySame topicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFrench-language works237,207