Optimal Strategies for Screening Common Birth Defects in Children of Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".