The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection Burden and Epidemiologic Risk Factors in Countries With Universal Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection is the most common congenital infection and the leading acquired cause of developmental disabilities and sensorineural deafness, yet a reliable assessment of the infection burden is lacking. Objectives: To estimate the birth prevalence of cCMV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs), characterize the rate by screening methods, and delineate associated risk factors of the infection. Data Sources: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from January 1, 1960, to March 1, 2021, and a total of 1322 studies were identified. Study Selection: Studies that provided data on the prevalence of cCMV derived from universal screening of infants younger than 3 weeks were included. Targeted screening studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Extraction was performed independently by 3 reviewers. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Metaregression was conducted to evaluate the association of sociodemographic characteristics, maternal seroprevalence, population-level HIV prevalence, and screening methods with the prevalence of cCMV. Main Outcomes and Measures: Birth prevalence of cCMV ascertained through universal screening of infants younger than 3 weeks for CMV from urine, saliva, or blood samples. Results: Seventy-seven studies comprising 515 646 infants met the inclusion criteria from countries representative of each World Bank income level. The estimated pooled overall prevalence of cCMV was 0.67% (95% CI, 0.54%-0.83%). The pooled birth prevalence of cCMV was 3-fold greater in LMICs (1.42%; 95% CI, 0.97%-2.08%; n = 23 studies) than in HICs (0.48%; 95% CI, 0.40%-0.59%, n = 54 studies). Screening methods with blood samples demonstrated lower rates of cCMV than urine or saliva samples (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.66). Higher maternal CMV seroprevalence (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.28), higher population-level HIV prevalence (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40), lower socioeconomic status (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 2.05-4.47), and younger mean maternal age (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92, older age was associated with lower rates) were associated with higher rates of cCMV. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, LMICs appeared to incur the most significant infection burden. Lower rates of cCMV were reported by studies using only blood or serum as a screening method.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,451
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,657
(2014) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 17,633
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Cited by
Syndromic retinitis pigmentosa.
Karuntu, J. S., Almushattat, H., Nguyen, X.-T.-A., Plomp, A. S., Wanders, R. J. A., Hoyng, C. B., van Schooneveld, M. J., Schalij-Delfos, N. E., Brands, M. M., Leroy, B. P., et al. (2025) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2024.101324 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Ssentongo, P., Hehnly, C., Birungi, P., Roach, M. A., Spady, J., Fronterre, C., Wang, M., Murray-Kolb, L. E., Al-Shaar, L., Chinchilli, V. M., Broach, J. R., Ericson, J. E., & Schiff, S. J.
- Venue
- JAMA Network Open
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2021-08-23
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e2120736
- ISSN
- 2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3194512587
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 69
- FWCI
- 18.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection Burden and Epidemiologic Risk Factors in Countries With Universal Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20736
- The paper
- Ssentongo, P., Hehnly, C., Birungi, P., Roach, M. A., Spady, J., Fronterre, C., Wang, M., Murray-Kolb, L. E., Al-Shaar, L., Chinchilli, V. M., Broach, J. R., Ericson, J. E., & Schiff, S. J. (2021). Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection Burden and Epidemiologic Risk Factors in Countries With Universal Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20736
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.