Cited by 286Congenital Heart Disease StudiesCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsCongenital heart defects research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prenatal diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease reduces risk of death from cardiovascular compromise prior to planned neonatal cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis

Open access
Holland, B. J., Myers, J. A., Woods, C. R.·2015·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if prenatal diagnosis improves the chance that a newborn with critical congenital heart disease will survive to undergo planned cardiac surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of the medical literature identified eight studies which met the following criteria: compared outcomes between newborns with prenatal and those with postnatal diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease; compared groups of patients with the same anatomical diagnosis; provided detailed information on cardiac anatomy; included detailed information on preoperative cause of death. A meta-analysis was performed to assess differences in preoperative mortality rates between newborns with prenatal diagnosis and those with postnatal diagnosis. Patients with established risk factors for increased mortality (high risk) and those whose families chose comfort care rather than cardiac surgery were excluded. RESULTS: In patients with comparable anatomy, standard risk, a parental desire to treat and optimal care, newborns with a prenatal diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease were significantly less likely to die prior to planned cardiac surgery than were those with a comparable postnatal diagnosis (pooled odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: For newborns most likely to benefit from treatment for their critical congenital heart disease, because they did not have additional risk factors and their families pursued treatment, prenatal diagnosis reduced the risk of death prior to planned cardiac surgery relative to patients with a comparable postnatal diagnosis. Further study and efforts to improve prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease should therefore be considered.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.14882

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 58 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. De Rita, 2012, Hospital outcome of repair of complex congenital heart disease in the neonate: impact of prenatal diagnosis, G Ital Cardiol, 13, 18S
  2. Stiasny, 2010, Impact of prenatal diagnosis on outcome of univentricular heart disease, Cardiol Young, 20, S15
  3. McBrien, 2010, Comparison of antenatally versus postnatally diagnosed major congenital heart disease, Cardiol Young, 20, 71
  4. Petit, 1998, Results and outcome of antenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease in the department of the Cote-d'Or over a nine year period, Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss, 91, 631
  5. Fratta, 2012, Outcome of critical CHD: comparison between prenatal and post-natal diagnosis in 548 neonates, Cardiol Young, 22, S108

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 283

Metadata

Authors
Holland, B. J., Myers, J. A., & Woods, C. R.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Holland, B. J.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06
Volume
45
Issue
6
Pages
631-638
ISSN
0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1855607912
Cited by
286
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Louisville
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Cardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Congenital heart defects research
Keywords
critical congenital heart disease, prenatal diagnosis, preoperative mortality, neonatal cardiac surgery, postnatal diagnosis, fetal echocardiography, congenital heart disease outcomes
MeSH terms
Female, Heart Defects, Congenital, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Risk Factors, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

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