ArticleWorld journal of pediatrics : WJP2026
Repeat community-based screening for school-age congenital heart disease: impact on the detection of cases requiring treatment in resource-limited settings.
Article in World journal of pediatrics : WJP, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSchool-based screening is a critical strategy for detecting congenital heart disease (CHD) in resource-limited regions, yet single-round programs may miss a substantial number of treatable cases. The value of repeat screening in identifying these missed cases remains underexplored.
methodsAs part of the Yunnan Provincial Comprehensive Plan for CHD Prevention and Control, we conducted two rounds of community-based CHD screening using cardiac auscultation followed by portable echocardiography in 23 counties. The first round (2017-2020) screened 1,024,998 children aged 3-18 years, and the second round (2021-2025) screened 1,059,156 children after intervals of 4, 5, 6, or 7 years. Children with CHD requiring treatment were identified and categorized by screening history.
resultsThe first screening detected 938 cases (prevalence: 0.92/1000), while the second screening detected 557 cases (prevalence: 0.53/1000). Of note, a significant proportion of cases identified in the second round represented missed diagnoses from the first screening. When comparing these missed cases ("previously covered") to the true new cases identified in the second round ("newly covered"), the "newly covered" cases were younger and had lower odds of moderate or great anatomical complexity [adjusted odds ratio (OR) for moderate complexity: 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36-0.92; adjusted OR for great complexity: 0.29, 95% CI = 0.11-0.71].
conclusionsRepeat school-based screening identifies a distinct group of previously missed and newly covered CHD cases, many of which are of higher anatomical complexity and would otherwise remain undiagnosed. These findings underscore the necessity for periodic rescreening to mitigate diagnostic gaps and improve CHD outcomes in resource-limited populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.