Scholarlink

<p>Congenital heart disease (CHD) presents a major health challenge in India. Wide variations exist in the burden of CHD across published studies. Pooling data from published evidence and analyzing factors associated with these variations can provide robust estimates and insights for policymakers and healthcare providers. A systematic literature search was done in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to August 2023. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool. This study was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023469773). A total of 33 studies were included in the systematic review, with 32 studies eligible for meta-analysis. The CHD event rates varied widely across the studies, ranging from 0.67 per 1000 to 40.28 per 1000. The pooled incidence of CHD was 10.10 per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.52–15.68). These studies predominantly assessed CHD shortly after birth or within a defined time window. The pooled prevalence of CHD among children was 9.61 per 1000 (95% CI, 6.18–13.05). These studies included cross-sectional assessments from school-based, hospital-based, and community-based screening of children in older age groups. Subgroup analyses revealed variations by population group, ranging from 7.44 per 1000 in school-based screenings to 14.00 per 1000 in fetal screening. A time trend analysis revealed 6.65/1000 (95% CI, 1.01 to 12.29) (1980–2000) to 11.47/1000 (95% CI, 5.65 to 17.30) (2016–2022). These findings highlight substantial variation in the burden of CHD reported across the studies, partially attributed to methodological heterogeneity. A nationwide longitudinal database with uniform methodology is essential to the accurate assessment of the burden, changing epidemiological profile, and clinical outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Burden of congenital heart disease among Indian children: a systematic review and meta analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月17日

查看全文
  • Gopireddy Murali Mohan Reddy,
  • Praveen Dontineni,
  • Maruti Haranal,
  • Atul Surendra Prabhu,
  • Shreedhar Joshi,
  • Deepak Prakash Borde,
  • Avelyn Thazhuthadath Kishore,
  • Rakesh Anbazhagan

摘要

Congenital heart disease (CHD) presents a major health challenge in India. Wide variations exist in the burden of CHD across published studies. Pooling data from published evidence and analyzing factors associated with these variations can provide robust estimates and insights for policymakers and healthcare providers. A systematic literature search was done in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to August 2023. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool. This study was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023469773). A total of 33 studies were included in the systematic review, with 32 studies eligible for meta-analysis. The CHD event rates varied widely across the studies, ranging from 0.67 per 1000 to 40.28 per 1000. The pooled incidence of CHD was 10.10 per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.52–15.68). These studies predominantly assessed CHD shortly after birth or within a defined time window. The pooled prevalence of CHD among children was 9.61 per 1000 (95% CI, 6.18–13.05). These studies included cross-sectional assessments from school-based, hospital-based, and community-based screening of children in older age groups. Subgroup analyses revealed variations by population group, ranging from 7.44 per 1000 in school-based screenings to 14.00 per 1000 in fetal screening. A time trend analysis revealed 6.65/1000 (95% CI, 1.01 to 12.29) (1980–2000) to 11.47/1000 (95% CI, 5.65 to 17.30) (2016–2022). These findings highlight substantial variation in the burden of CHD reported across the studies, partially attributed to methodological heterogeneity. A nationwide longitudinal database with uniform methodology is essential to the accurate assessment of the burden, changing epidemiological profile, and clinical outcomes.