Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Oct 8;21(10):e0351014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351014

Nutritional status, clinical burden, and healthcare utilization among pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease: A retrospective cross-sectional study from Indonesia

Putri Amelia 1,2,*, Lourents Christian Dika Sahertian 3, Rizky Adriansyah 1, Johnson Kannady 3
Editor: Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded4
PMCID: PMC13648971  PMID: 42848768

Abstract

Congenital heart disease contributes substantially to chronic morbidity, growth impairment, and repeated healthcare utilization among children. Evidence regarding nutritional burden and outpatient healthcare patterns among pediatric patients with congenital heart disease in Indonesia remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics, nutritional status, healthcare utilization, and factors associated with malnutrition among pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease at Adam Malik General Hospital, Indonesia. A retrospective observational study was conducted using medical records of pediatric outpatients treated between January and December 2024. Demographic characteristics, cardiac diagnoses, nutritional status, complications, and outpatient visit history were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with malnutrition. A total of 606 pediatric outpatients were included. Non cyanotic congenital heart disease predominated the cohort, with ventricular septal defect representing the most common diagnosis followed by patent ductus arteriosus and atrial septal defect. Nearly half of all patients demonstrated underweight or severe underweight nutritional status, while pulmonary hypertension emerged as the most frequent complication. Younger pediatric age groups and higher cumulative clinical burden were independently associated with greater odds of malnutrition. Children with congenital heart disease at this tertiary referral center carried a substantial nutritional and clinical burden. Routine nutritional screening, particularly among younger children and those with greater clinical burden may help identify patients who warrant closer nutritional assessment and multidisciplinary follow-up.

Introduction

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital anomaly in children and remains an important cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide [1,2]. Although survival has improved with advances in diagnosis and treatment, children with CHD in low and middle income countries still frequently experience delayed diagnosis, limited access to specialized care, and chronic hemodynamic stress that may impair growth and nutritional status [3–6]. Malnutrition is a clinically important comorbidity in this population because it affects immune function, neurodevelopment, surgical readiness, and long-term outcomes [3,4,7].

In addition to nutritional impairment, children with CHD often require repeated outpatient follo – up, reflecting the chronic burden of their disease [8]. However, data from Indonesia remain limited, particularly regarding the relationship between nutritional status, clinical burden, and healthcare utilization in pediatric outpatient settings. Adam Malik General Hospital is a major tertiary referral center in North Sumatra that receives pediatric cardiology referrals from multiple districts across western Indonesia. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics, nutritional status, healthcare utilization, and factors associated with malnutrition among pediatric outpatients with CHD at Adam Malik General Hospital in 2024.

Methods

Study design and setting

This study used a retrospective observational design based on secondary data obtained from medical records of pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease at Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia. Adam Malik General Hospital functions as a tertiary referral center for pediatric cardiology services in western Indonesia and receives referrals from multiple districts across North Sumatra and surrounding provinces. Data collection covered outpatient visits recorded between January 1 and December 31, 2024.

Study population and sampling

The study population consisted of all pediatric patients diagnosed with congenital heart disease who attended the pediatric outpatient clinic during the study period. A total sampling approach was applied to include all eligible patients who fulfilled the study criteria.

Inclusion criteria consisted of pediatric patients aged 0–18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of congenital heart disease documented by pediatric cardiologists based on transthoracic echocardiography in the medical record. Patients were included only when demographic information, congenital heart disease classification, nutritional assessment, and outpatient visit history were available.

Patients with incomplete core demographic data or unclear congenital heart disease diagnosis were excluded from the analysis.

Variables and operational definitions

The primary outcome of this study was malnutrition. Nutritional status was obtained from medical records, where anthropometric assessments had been routinely performed during outpatient visits according to age appropriate growth standards. For children aged <5 years, nutritional status was assessed using the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards (2006) based on body mass index (BMI)-for-age z-scores. Underweight was defined as a BMI-for-age z-score between −3 SD and <−2 SD, whereas severe underweight was defined as a BMI-for-age z-score <−3 SD. For children aged ≥5 years, nutritional status was assessed using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Growth Charts based on BMI-for-age percentiles routinely applied in the institution. Underweight was defined as a BMI-for-age percentile below the 5th percentile. Patients with normal nutritional status served as the reference group. For regression analyses, patients classified as underweight or severe underweight were combined into a single malnutrition category.

Congenital heart disease (CHD) was classified according to physiological status as cyanotic or non-cyanotic CHD based on the documented echocardiographic diagnosis. Individual cardiac lesions, including atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, patent ductus arteriosus, pulmonary stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, tetralogy of Fallot, and transposition of the great arteries, were also recorded and summarized descriptively. Physiological classification was selected for multivariable analysis because detailed lesion-specific hemodynamic parameters, including shunt magnitude, ventricular function, and pressure gradients, were not consistently available in the retrospective medical records.

Demographic variables included sex and age group. Age categories consisted of neonates, infants, young toddlers, toddlers, preschool children, school aged children, and adolescents. Because of sparse observations in the extreme age categories, neonatal and adolescent groups were combined in the primary multivariable analysis to improve model stability.

Clinical variables included dyspnea, poor feeding, easy fatigability, cyanosis, poor weight gain, pulmonary hypertension, respiratory tract infection, heart failure, failure to thrive, and Eisenmenger syndrome. Healthcare utilization was assessed using the number of outpatient visits recorded during the study period.

A cumulative burden score was developed as an investigator designed exploratory composite measure to summarize overall clinical burden. The score was calculated as the total number of documented symptoms and complications recorded for each patient during the study period, with higher scores indicating greater cumulative clinical burden. It was used solely for exploratory analyses within the present study because this composite measure has not undergone formal validation.

Data collection procedure

Medical records were reviewed systematically using hospital registration databases and outpatient cardiology records. Eligible patients were identified from the hospital outpatient registry using congenital heart disease diagnostic codes recorded in the electronic medical record system and subsequently verified through transthoracic echocardiographic documentation. The diagnosis of congenital heart disease was established by pediatric cardiologists according to standard echocardiographic assessment documented in the medical record. Nutritional status assessments were routinely performed during outpatient visits using anthropometric measurements obtained by trained clinical staff as part of standard pediatric care and interpreted according to the institution’s established growth assessment procedures. Relevant demographic, clinical, nutritional, and healthcare utilization variables were subsequently extracted and entered into a structured data collection form. Data cleaning and verification were performed before statistical analysis to reduce entry inconsistencies and duplicate records.

Missing data handling

Data completeness was evaluated for all study variables before analysis. Demographic variables, congenital heart disease classification, nutritional status, and outpatient visit history were complete. Symptom and complication variables showed substantial missingness, as summarized in S1 Table. Complete case analysis was applied because of missing data in covariates included in the regression model. Therefore, only patients with complete data for all variables included in the final multivariable model were retained for regression analysis. No imputation was performed because the retrospective nature of the dataset and the pattern of missingness did not support reliable imputation.

Missing clinical documentation was considered likely related to inconsistent recording practices rather than true biological absence of symptoms or complications. No imputation procedures were performed because of the retrospective nature of the dataset and the non random pattern of missingness. Complete case analysis was therefore applied for regression modeling.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics and R statistical software. Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages, whereas continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (minimum–maximum), as appropriate according to data distribution.

Univariate analyses were conducted to describe demographic characteristics, CHD subtype distribution, nutritional status, clinical manifestations, complications, and healthcare utilization patterns.

Factors associated with malnutrition were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Univariable logistic regression was initially performed to estimate crude odds ratios (ORs) and identify candidate variables. Variables considered clinically relevant or demonstrating statistical association were subsequently entered into the multivariable logistic regression model to estimate adjusted ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

The primary multivariable model included CHD physiological classification (cyanotic versus non cyanotic), sex, age group, and cumulative burden score as prespecified covariates. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 indicated increased odds of malnutrition, and statistical significance was defined as a two sided p-value <0.05.

Sensitivity analysis was performed using the original non collapsed age group classification to evaluate the robustness of the primary model. Multicollinearity was assessed using generalized variance inflation factor (GVIF) values. Model performance was evaluated using the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Tjur’s R2, root mean square error (RMSE), logarithmic score (log-loss), and proportion correctly predicted (PCP).

Ethical consideration

The Health Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Sumatera Utara approved this study with ethical clearance number 653/KEPK/USU/2025. Permission to access medical records was obtained from Adam Malik General Hospital before data collection. Medical records were accessed for research purposes between 17/07/2025 and 31/12/2025. Authors had access to identifiable participant information during data collection; however, all data were anonymized prior to statistical analysis. Because of the retrospective observational design using secondary medical record data, the requirement for informed consent was waived by the ethics committee.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the study population

A total of 606 pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis (Table 1). Female patients slightly outnumbered males with 319 cases (52.6%), whereas male patients accounted for 287 cases (47.4%). The largest age category consisted of young toddlers with 166 patients (27.4%), followed by school aged children with 138 patients (22.8%) and infants with 111 patients (18.3%). Preschool children represented the smallest subgroup with 28 patients (4.6%).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

Characteristic Overall cohort (N = 606)
Sex
 Female 319 (52.6)
 Male 287 (47.4)
Age group category
 Adolescent/Neonate 77 (12.7)
 Infants 111 (18.3)
 Preschool children 28 (4.6)
 School aged children 138 (22.8)
 Toddlers 86 (14.2)
 Young toddlers 166 (27.4)
Nutritional status
 Normal 308 (50.8)
 Underweight 119 (19.6)
 Severe underweight 179 (29.5)
Healthcare utilization
 Number of outpatient visits 3.24 ± 2.90
CHD physiology
 Non cyanotic CHD 575 (94.9)
 Cyanotic CHD 31 (5.1)
Burden score
 0 422 (69.6)
 1 153 (25.2)
 2 26 (4.3)
 3 5 (0.8)

Non cyanotic congenital heart disease dominated the cohort and accounted for 575 patients (94.9%), while cyanotic lesions were identified in 31 patients (5.1%). Nutritional assessment demonstrated that 308 patients (50.8%) had normal nutritional status. Underweight and severe underweight status were identified in 119 patients (19.6%) and 179 patients (29.5%), respectively. Overall, malnutrition affected 298 patients (49.2%) within the study population.

The mean number of outpatient visits during 2024 was 3.24 ± 2.90 visits per patient. Most patients demonstrated low cumulative clinical burden scores. A burden score of 0 was identified in 422 patients (69.6%), whereas only five patients (0.8%) demonstrated the highest observed burden score of 3. This distribution was highly skewed toward the lowest score, indicating limited variation in burden across much of the cohort.

Distribution of congenital heart disease subtypes and nutritional status

Ventricular septal defect represented the most frequently documented congenital heart disease subtype and was identified in 259 patients (33.5%). Patent ductus arteriosus and atrial septal defect followed closely with 218 cases (28.2%) and 217 cases (28.0%), respectively. Pulmonary stenosis accounted for 44 patients (5.7%). Cyanotic lesions occurred less frequently and included transposition of the great arteries in 18 patients (2.3%) and tetralogy of Fallot in 13 patients (1.7%). Coarctation of the aorta represented the rarest lesion with only five documented cases (0.7%) (Table 2).

Table 2. Distribution of congenital heart disease subtypes.

CHD subtype n (%)
Ventricular septal defect (VSD) 259 (33.5)
Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) 218 (28.2)
Atrial septal defect (ASD) 217 (28.0)
Pulmonary stenosis (PS) 44 (5.7)
Transposition of the great arteries (TGA) 18 (2.3)
Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) 13 (1.7)
Coarctation of the aorta (CoA) 5 (0.7)

Abbreviations: ASD, atrial septal defect; CoA, coarctation of the aorta; PDA, patent ductus arteriosus; PS, pulmonary stenosis; TGA, transposition of the great arteries; TOF, tetralogy of Fallot; VSD, ventricular septal defect.

Nutritional impairment appeared across both cyanotic and non cyanotic congenital heart disease groups. More than half of patients with tetralogy of Fallot and transposition of the great arteries demonstrated underweight or severe underweight status. Among non cyanotic lesions, ventricular septal defect showed the highest nutritional burden, with severe underweight and underweight collectively affecting more than half of patients in this subgroup. Patients with atrial septal defect and patent ductus arteriosus more frequently demonstrated normal nutritional status compared with other lesions. Coarctation of the aorta showed the most severe nutritional profile, although the subgroup size was very small.

These subtype patterns were interpreted descriptively because the cyanotic subgroup was small (n = 31). Formal inferential comparison between CHD subtypes was therefore limited by sparse subgroup sizes and should be interpreted cautiously.

Clinical manifestations, complications, and data completeness

Clinical symptoms and complications varied across the cohort (Table 3). Pulmonary hypertension emerged as the most frequently documented complication and affected 115 patients (19.0%). Respiratory tract infection occurred in 56 patients (9.2%), while heart failure was identified in 46 patients (7.6%). Eisenmenger syndrome remained uncommon and was observed in only three patients (0.5%).

Table 3. Distribution of clinical complications among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

Complication n (%)
Pulmonary hypertension 115 (19.0)
Respiratory tract infection 56 (9.2)
Heart failure 46 (7.6)
Eisenmenger syndrome 3 (0.5)

Growth related manifestations also appeared frequently within the outpatient population. Poor weight gain, feeding difficulty, dyspnea, and easy fatigability were commonly documented among patients with repeated healthcare utilization and higher clinical burden scores.

Symptom and complication variables showed substantial missingness because retrospective clinical documentation varied between visits and treating physicians. Detailed completeness assessment and proportions of missing data across study variables are summarized in S1 Table. Because of this missingness, complete case analysis was applied for regression modeling.

Healthcare utilization patterns

Outpatient healthcare utilization demonstrated substantial variability throughout the study period. The cumulative number of outpatient visits reached 2,065 visits during 2024. Monthly visit frequency ranged from 137 visits in April to 201 visits in July. Higher outpatient volume also appeared during October and November with 198 and 195 visits, respectively.

Evaluation of registration frequency per patient demonstrated that most patients attended outpatient services only once during the study year. Single visit registration was identified in 238 patients (39.3%). Two visits and three visits occurred in 83 patients (13.7%) and 86 patients (14.2%), respectively. A smaller subgroup demonstrated substantially higher healthcare utilization, with several patients requiring more than 10 outpatient visits within one year. The maximum recorded frequency reached 20 visits.

Patients with severe underweight status demonstrated broader healthcare utilization distributions and higher outpatient visit frequencies compared with patients who had normal nutritional status. Violin boxplot analysis also demonstrated wider variability of visit burden among malnourished patients. Detailed healthcare utilization patterns according to nutritional status are illustrated in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Healthcare utilization across nutritional status groups among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

Fig 1

Violin boxplot distribution demonstrating outpatient healthcare utilization according to nutritional status among pediatric patients with congenital heart disease. The violin component represents distribution density, whereas embedded boxplots display the median and interquartile range. Individual observations are overlaid as jittered points, and yellow diamonds indicate group medians.

Nutritional status across congenital heart disease subtypes

Nutritional impairment appeared across both cyanotic and non cyanotic congenital heart disease groups. More than half of patients with tetralogy of Fallot and transposition of the great arteries demonstrated underweight or severe underweight status. Among non cyanotic lesions, ventricular septal defect showed the highest nutritional burden. Severe underweight and underweight collectively affected more than half of patients with ventricular septal defect.

Patients with atrial septal defect and patent ductus arteriosus more frequently demonstrated normal nutritional status compared with other lesions. Nevertheless, substantial proportions of nutritional impairment still remained evident within these groups. Coarctation of the aorta demonstrated the most severe nutritional profile because all affected patients exhibited malnutrition, although the subgroup size remained very small.

Factors associated with malnutrition

Univariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that high healthcare utilization, pulmonary hypertension, poor feeding, and higher burden score were associated with increased odds of malnutrition. Poor feeding demonstrated the strongest crude association and produced nearly fourfold higher odds of malnutrition compared with patients without feeding difficulties. Detailed univariable logistic regression findings are presented in S2 Table.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that younger pediatric age groups exhibited consistently higher odds of malnutrition compared with the adolescent and neonatal reference category (Table 4). Young toddlers demonstrated approximately 2.7-fold increased odds of malnutrition with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.68 (95% CI 1.52–4.74; p < 0.001). Toddlers also demonstrated significantly increased odds with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.28 (95% CI 1.21–4.34; p = 0.012). School aged children and infants showed elevated odds ratios, although confidence intervals crossed the null value. The age distribution of nutritional status is illustrated in Fig 2, which demonstrates a greater proportion of undernutrition among younger pediatric age groups than among older children.

Table 4. Multivariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with malnutrition.

Variable Adjusted OR 95% CI p-value
Cyanotic CHD 1.50 0.70–3.20 0.296
Male sex 1.10 0.79–1.52 0.579
Age group
 Infants 1.66 0.91–3.05 0.103
 Preschool children 0.83 0.33–2.11 0.694
 School aged children 1.74 0.98–3.12 0.062
 Toddlers 2.28 1.21–4.34 0.012
 Young toddlers 2.68 1.52–4.74 <0.001
 Burden score 1.50 1.14–1.99 0.004

Fig 2. Distribution of nutritional status across pediatric age groups among patients with congenital heart disease.

Fig 2

Stacked bars show within age group proportions of normal nutritional status, underweight, and severe underweight. Exact percentages were: infants, 51.4% normal, 15.3% underweight, 33.3% severe underweight; young toddlers, 41.6%, 18.7%, and 39.8%; toddlers, 46.5%, 24.4%, and 29.1%; preschool children, 67.9%, 17.9%, and 14.3%; school aged children, 52.9%, 23.9%, and 23.2%; and adolescent/neonate, 64.9%, 15.6%, and 19.5%.

Higher burden score independently remained associated with malnutrition after adjustment for covariates. Each incremental increase in burden score increased the odds of malnutrition by approximately 50%, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.50 (95% CI 1.14–1.99; p = 0.004). However, interpretation of this finding should be considered in light of the highly skewed burden score distribution.

Higher burden score independently remained associated with malnutrition after adjustment for covariates. Each incremental increase in burden score increased the odds of malnutrition by approximately 50%, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.50 (95% CI 1.14–1.99; p = 0.004). However, interpretation of this finding should be considered in light of the highly skewed burden score distribution.

Cyanotic congenital heart disease and male sex did not demonstrate statistically significant associations with malnutrition in the final model. Cyanotic physiology produced an adjusted odds ratio of 1.50 (95% CI 0.70–3.20; p = 0.296), whereas male sex produced an adjusted odds ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 0.79–1.52; p = 0.579). Adjusted odds ratios and confidence intervals derived from the final multivariable logistic regression model are visualized in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Factors associated with malnutrition among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

Fig 3

Forest plot showing adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals derived from the multivariable logistic regression model evaluating factors associated with malnutrition among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

Sensitivity analysis and model performance

Sensitivity analysis using the original non collapsed age group classification demonstrated findings generally consistent with the primary model. Young toddlers and toddlers remained significantly associated with increased odds of malnutrition, while high healthcare utilization also remained independently associated with malnutrition in the sensitivity model. High healthcare utilization was associated with greater odds of malnutrition (adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07–2.22; p = 0.020). Estimates for the neonatal subgroup remained unstable because of the very small number of observations and quasi complete separation.

Multicollinearity assessment demonstrated acceptable generalized variance inflation factor values across included covariates. No evidence of clinically significant multicollinearity was identified within the final regression model. Detailed multicollinearity diagnostics are presented in S4 Table.

Overall model performance demonstrated acceptable calibration and classification capability for exploratory clinical association analysis. Detailed model performance metrics are summarized in S5 Table. The final multivariable model produced Akaike information criterion 828.9 and Tjur’s R² 0.062. Calibration analysis demonstrated reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities of malnutrition across the range of estimated risk values. Calibration performance of the final multivariable model is illustrated in S1 Fig.

Discussion

This study demonstrated that non cyanotic congenital heart disease dominated the outpatient pediatric population at Adam Malik General Hospital, with ventricular septal defect, patent ductus arteriosus, and atrial septal defect representing the most frequently identified lesions. Nearly half of all patients experienced malnutrition, while pulmonary hypertension emerged as the most commonly documented complication. Younger pediatric age groups and higher cumulative clinical burden were independently associated with greater odds of malnutrition in the primary multivariable model. Higher healthcare utilization was also associated with malnutrition in univariable analysis and remained statistically significant in the sensitivity model, but this finding should be interpreted separately from the primary multivariable results.

The predominance of ventricular septal defect, patent ductus arteriosus, and atrial septal defect is also consistent with reports from Southeast Asia. Previous Indonesian studies from Medan and Bandung similarly identified acyanotic or left-to-right shunt lesions as the predominant CHD phenotype, with ventricular septal defect representing the most common diagnosis. The Medan cohort reported malnutrition in approximately 37% of children with CHD, whereas our study observed malnutrition in nearly half of the outpatient population, suggesting a greater nutritional burden in our cohort. A study from Bandung likewise demonstrated that malnutrition was associated with recurrent pneumonia among children with left-to-right shunt CHD, reinforcing the close interaction between nutritional impairment and chronic clinical morbidity in Indonesian children with congenital heart disease [9–12].

Young toddlers represented the largest age group within the present cohort. This distribution likely reflects the period when persistent symptoms, growth disturbances, recurrent respiratory infections, or delayed developmental progress become more apparent to caregivers and healthcare providers. Children within this age range also undergo rapid somatic growth and increased nutritional demands, making underlying hemodynamic abnormalities more clinically visible. School aged children formed the second largest subgroup and may reflect long term outpatient follow up among survivors with stable congenital lesions requiring periodic cardiac evaluation. Earlier studies from tertiary referral centers have reported comparable age distributions with continued healthcare utilization extending beyond infancy [11,13].

Nearly half of the study population demonstrated underweight or severe underweight nutritional status. This finding reinforces the substantial nutritional burden carried by children with congenital heart disease in resource limited settings. Chronic hemodynamic stress may be associated with increased resting energy expenditure and impaired feeding patterns. Pulmonary overcirculation, recurrent respiratory symptoms, and heart failure further increase metabolic demand while reducing caloric intake efficiency. Recurrent illness and prolonged inflammatory stress may also be associated with impaired nutrient absorption and weight gain during critical periods of childhood growth [3,4,8,14].

Nutritional impairment appeared across both cyanotic and non cyanotic lesions. Although cyanotic congenital heart disease has traditionally been associated with severe malnutrition because of chronic hypoxemia, ventricular septal defect demonstrated similarly high rates of nutritional problems within this cohort. Large left to right shunts may be associated with pulmonary congestion, tachypnea, feeding intolerance, and recurrent respiratory tract infections, which may contribute to impaired growth despite preserved systemic oxygenation. This observation suggests that chronic hemodynamic burden may contribute to malnutrition as strongly as cyanotic physiology itself [15,16].

Similar observations have been reported in Thailand, where approximately two – thirds of children undergoing corrective cardiac surgery were malnourished before intervention. However, unlike the Thai surgical cohort, cyanotic physiology was not independently associated with malnutrition in our study. This discrepancy likely reflects differences in study populations, as the Thai study enrolled children awaiting surgery, whereas the present investigation evaluated a heterogeneous outpatient population with varying disease severity and follow – up duration. These findings suggest that cumulative clinical burden and persistent hemodynamic stress may have a stronger association with nutritional status than cyanotic physiology alone in this outpatient population [17].

Pulmonary hypertension represented the most common complication identified in the study population. Persistent exposure to increased pulmonary blood flow in untreated or hemodynamically significant shunt lesions may be related to this finding. Pulmonary vascular remodeling may develop progressively when left to right shunting remains uncontrolled over prolonged periods. Previous studies have also documented pulmonary hypertension as a frequent complication among pediatric patients with congenital heart disease, especially in settings where delayed diagnosis or limited access to definitive intervention remains common [3,6,14].

Healthcare utilization patterns demonstrated wide variability across the cohort. Most patients attended outpatient services only once or twice during the study year, whereas a smaller subgroup required repeated follow up with substantially higher visit frequencies. Patients with severe underweight status showed broader healthcare utilization distributions compared with children who maintained normal nutritional status. In univariable analysis, high healthcare utilization was associated with greater odds of malnutrition, and this association remained statistically significant in the sensitivity model (adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07–2.22; p = 0.020). However, because healthcare utilization was not included in the primary multivariable model, this finding should not be interpreted as an independent association in the primary analysis. The observed relationship may reflect greater clinical burden or other factors that were not fully captured in the retrospective medical records [9,12].

Multivariable regression analysis identified young toddlers and toddlers as the age groups with the highest odds of malnutrition. Early childhood represents a vulnerable developmental period characterized by rapid growth velocity and increased nutritional demand. Children with congenital heart disease may have difficulty meeting these metabolic requirements because chronic cardiac dysfunction may be associated with reduced energy utilization and feeding capacity. Changes in dietary intake during early childhood may also be associated with nutritional vulnerability particularly among children with persistent respiratory symptoms or feeding difficulties [4,8,14].

Sensitivity analysis using the original age group classification produced findings that were generally consistent with the primary analysis, although estimates for the neonatal subgroup remained unstable because of the very small number of observations (S3 Table).

Higher burden scores were associated with greater odds of malnutrition after adjustment for the prespecified covariates. This finding is consistent with the concept that nutritional deterioration in congenital heart disease reflects cumulative clinical stress rather than a single isolated manifestation. Recurrent respiratory symptoms, feeding problems, pulmonary hypertension, and repeated healthcare encounters may collectively reflect greater clinical complexity and nutritional vulnerability. Burden based assessment may therefore provide a broader representation of disease complexity among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients [10,12,18].

Cyanotic physiology did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with malnutrition after adjustment for covariates. Several explanations may account for this finding. First, the relatively small number of cyanotic cases reduced statistical power for subgroup comparison. Second, non cyanotic lesions with substantial left to right shunting may produce severe metabolic stress and feeding dysfunction comparable to cyanotic lesions. Third, outpatient survivors with cyanotic congenital heart disease may already represent a relatively stable subgroup receiving long term specialized care. Similar observations have been reported by studies demonstrating that nutritional impairment in congenital heart disease depends not only on oxygen saturation status but also on hemodynamic severity and chronic symptom burden.

The present study has several limitations. The retrospective design relied on medical record documentation that demonstrated substantial missingness within symptom and complication variables. Detailed completeness assessment and proportions of missing data across study variables are summarized in S1 Table. The cumulative burden score was an investigator developed exploratory measure rather than a validated clinical instrument; therefore, its findings should be interpreted cautiously and require external validation. The analysis classified congenital heart disease according to cyanotic and non-cyanotic physiology because detailed lesion hemodynamic severity parameters (echocardiographic measures of shunt magnitude, ventricular function, and pressure gradients) were not consistently available in the medical records and therefore could not be included in the multivariable analyses. Residual confounding by disease severity cannot be excluded and should be considered when interpreting the observed associations. In addition, the study was conducted at a single tertiary referral center, which introduces referral bias. Adam Malik General Hospital receives patients from multiple districts across North Sumatra and neighboring provinces, resulting in a cohort enriched with children requiring specialized cardiac evaluation, long term follow – up, or management of more complex disease. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as representative of a tertiary care outpatient population rather than the overall pediatric CHD population in Indonesia.

The findings support routine nutritional screening among children with congenital heart disease, particularly younger children and those with greater cumulative clinical burden. These patients may warrant closer nutritional assessment and multidisciplinary follow-up as part of ongoing outpatient care.

Conclusion

Pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease at Adam Malik General Hospital had a substantial burden of malnutrition, with nearly half of the cohort classified as underweight or severely underweight. Younger age groups and higher cumulative clinical burden were associated with greater odds of malnutrition in the primary multivariable model. Healthcare utilization was associated with malnutrition in univariable analysis and remained statistically significant in the sensitivity analysis, but it was not retained in the primary multivariable model. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because the retrospective cross-sectional design does not establish temporal or causal relationships while missing clinical data and unmeasured disease severity may have influenced the observed associations. In practice, routine nutritional screening during pediatric CHD follow-up, with particular attention to younger children and those with greater documented clinical burden, may facilitate earlier nutritional assessment and appropriate multidisciplinary management. Prospective studies using standardized nutritional and clinical severity measures are needed to confirm these associations.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Completeness assessment of variables included in the retrospective pediatric congenital heart disease cohort.

Abbreviations: CHD, congenital heart disease. Data completeness was evaluated across all study variables included in the retrospective outpatient cohort. Symptom- and complication-related variables demonstrated substantial missingness because of inconsistent retrospective clinical documentation. No imputation procedures were performed, and complete-case analysis was applied for multivariable regression modeling.

(DOCX)

pone.0351014.s001.docx (22.5KB, docx)
S2 Table. Univariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with malnutrition among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 indicate increased odds of malnutrition.

(DOCX)

pone.0351014.s002.docx (19.5KB, docx)
S3 Table. Sensitivity analysis using the original age-group classification in multivariable logistic regression.

Sensitivity analysis was performed using the original age-group classification to evaluate the robustness of the primary multivariable logistic regression findings. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from logistic regression models with malnutrition as the dependent variable. Reference categories were non-cyanotic CHD, female sex, and preschool-aged children. Odds ratios greater than 1 indicate increased odds of malnutrition. NE = not estimable with reliable precision because of sparse observations and quasi-complete separation in the neonatal subgroup (n = 4). Despite instability in this subgroup, the overall direction and magnitude of associations remained consistent with the primary analysis, supporting the robustness of the primary findings.

(DOCX)

pone.0351014.s003.docx (23KB, docx)
S4 Table. Multicollinearity diagnostics for the multivariable logistic regression model.

GVIF = generalized variance inflation factor. Adjusted GVIF was calculated as GVIF(1/(2×Df)) to account for variables with multiple degrees of freedom. Higher adjusted GVIF values indicate greater collinearity among predictors. All adjusted GVIF values remained below 5, suggesting no evidence of clinically significant multicollinearity within the final multivariable regression model. Df denotes degrees of freedom for each variable.

(DOCX)

pone.0351014.s004.docx (17.7KB, docx)
S5 Table. Overall performance metrics of the multivariable logistic regression model.

Model performance metrics were calculated to evaluate overall goodness-of-fit, explanatory performance, and classification accuracy of the final multivariable logistic regression model. Lower AIC, AICc, BIC, RMSE, and log-loss values indicate improved model fit. Tjur’s R2 reflects explanatory performance for binary outcomes, whereas PCP represents the proportion of correctly classified observations. Collectively, these metrics suggested acceptable overall model performance for exploratory clinical association analysis.

(DOCX)

pone.0351014.s005.docx (17.8KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Calibration plot of the final multivariable logistic regression model for malnutrition among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

Calibration plot demonstrating agreement between predicted and observed probabilities of malnutrition derived from the multivariable logistic regression model. The dashed diagonal line represents perfect calibration, indicating exact agreement between predicted and observed risk estimates. Blue points and the solid calibration curve represent bootstrap-corrected calibration estimates generated using 1,000 bootstrap resamples. Overall, the model demonstrated acceptable calibration across the observed range of predicted probabilities, although minor deviation from perfect calibration was observed at higher predicted probabilities.

(TIF)

pone.0351014.s006.tif (65.4KB, tif)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Department of Pediatrics and the medical record staff at Adam Malik General Hospital for their assistance during data retrieval and administrative support throughout the study process. The authors also acknowledge the support provided by Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara in facilitating the conduct of this research.

Data Availability

The data underlying the findings of this study were derived from retrospective pediatric medical records obtained at Adam Malik General Hospital. All data used for the analyses have been de-identified prior to sharing to protect participant confidentiality. The minimal dataset necessary to replicate the study findings is provided within the manuscript and Supporting information files. Researchers requiring additional de-identified data or further information regarding the dataset may contact the corresponding author (putri.amelia@usu.ac.id) or the study investigator (johnsonkannady@students.usu.ac.id). Requests will be considered in accordance with institutional policies, ethical requirements, and regulations governing the use of patient medical record data.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Liu Y, Chen S, Zühlke L, Black GC, Choy MK, Li N, et al. Global birth prevalence of congenital heart defects 1970–2017: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 260 studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(2):455–63. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhao Q-M, Liu F, Wu L, Ma X-J, Niu C, Huang G-Y. Prevalence of congenital heart disease at live birth in China. J Pediatr. 2019;204:53–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.08.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lee J, Marshall T, Buck H, Pamela M, Daack-Hirsch S. Growth failure in children with congenital heart disease. Children (Basel). 2025;12(5):616. doi: 10.3390/children12050616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jamei Khosroshahi A, Shoaran M, Ghaffari S, Shabanpour E, Seraj Ebrahimi P, Ansari A, et al. Growth pattern of children with congenital heart disease before and after open heart surgery. Front Pediatr. 2025;13:1463998. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1463998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jung SY. Growth in children with congenital heart disease: Filling the gap with nationwide evidence. Korean Circ J. 2025;55(10):936–7. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2025.0139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cha JH, Choi Y-J, Ryu S, Cho Y, Yang S, Na JY. Physical growth trajectories in children with congenital heart disease: A nationwide study. Korean Circ J. 2025;55(10):923–35. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2025.0020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Benderly M, Buber J, Kalter-Leibovici O, Blieden L, Dadashev A, Lorber A, et al. Israeli Adult Congenital Heart Disease Research Group. Health service utilization patterns among adults with congenital heart disease: a population-based study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(2):e018037. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.018037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Abbas Q, Ali H, Ahuja AK, Bhatti OA, Ladak S, Khan I, et al. Preoperative nutrition status in children with congenital heart disease and its impact on postoperative outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):25738. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-96374-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Amelia P, Yosephine AG, Tobing TC, Savira M, Viandy V, Inglin M. Association between type of congenital heart disease with child growth and development status: A cross-sectional study in Medan, Indonesia. Narra J. 2023;3(3):e414. doi: 10.52225/narra.v3i3.414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rahayuningsih SE, Budi Kuswiyanto R, Reviyani Suryaningrat F, Nataprawira HM, Sukadi A. Left to right shunt congenital heart disease as a risk factor of recurrent pneumonia in under five-year-old children: A single centre experience in Bandung Indonesia. Med Glas (Zenica). 2021;18(1):33–7. doi: 10.17392/1196-21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Thomford NE, Biney RP, Okai E. Clinical spectrum of congenital heart defects detected at the child health clinic in a tertiary health facility in Ghana: A retrospective analysis. J Congenit Heart Dis. 2020;4:3. doi: 10.1186/s40949-020-00034-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Finariawan F, Mahmud SA. The characteristics and distribution of congenital heart disease in outpatient clinic and inpatient ward of RSUD Dr. Soedono Madiun East Java in year 2015. Acta Cardiol Indones. 2018;4(1):9. doi: 10.22146/aci.36633 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Baksh AK, Waworuntu DS, Umboh A. Profil penyakit jantung bawaan di Bagian Ilmu Kesehatan Anak RSUP Prof. Dr. R. D. Kandou Manado periode September 2022–Agustus 2023. Acta Cardiol Indones. 2023;12(3):55352. doi: 10.35790/ecl.v12i3.55352 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Woldesenbet R, Murugan R, Mulugeta F, Moges T. Nutritional status and associated factors among children with congenital heart disease in selected governmental hospitals and cardiac center, Addis Ababa Ethiopia. BMC Pediatr. 2021;21(1):538. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-03023-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jone P-N, Ivy DD, Hauck A, Karamlou T, Truong U, Coleman RD, et al. Pulmonary hypertension in congenital heart disease: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Heart Fail. 2023;16(7):e00080. doi: 10.1161/HHF.0000000000000080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Loni R, Ranganath P, Juvekar M, Tikare N, Bidari LH, Karva MM. Clinical profile and outcome of children with congenital heart diseases admitted with acute events in a paediatric tertiary care unit in North Karnataka. Int J Contemp Pediatr. 2021;8(8). doi: 10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20212757 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sethasathien S, Silvilairat S, Sittiwangkul R, Makonkawkeyoon K, Kittisakmontri K, Pongprot Y. Prevalence and predictive factors of malnutrition in Thai children with congenital heart disease and short-term postoperative growth outcomes. Nutr Health. 2023;29(3):549–55. doi: 10.1177/02601060221082382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kempny A, Diller G-P, Dimopoulos K, Alonso-Gonzalez R, Uebing A, Li W, et al. Determinants of outpatient clinic attendance amongst adults with congenital heart disease and outcome. Int J Cardiol. 2016;203:245–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded

14 Jul 2026

Dear Dr. Amelia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 12 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that the data underlying the findings of this study contain potentially identifiable patient information derived from retrospective medical records and cannot be shared publicly because of institutional and ethical restrictions. Deidentified data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with permission from Adam Malik General Hospital and the Health Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

4. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure S1 which you refer to in your text on page 14, 20.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This is an automated report for PONE-D-26-24373. This report was solicited by the PLOS One editorial team and provided by ScreenIT. ScreenIT is an independent group of scientists developing automated tools that analyze academic papers. A set of automated tools screened your submitted manuscript and provided the report below. Each tool was created by your academic colleagues with the goal of helping authors. The tools look for factors that are important for transparency, rigor and reproducibility, and we hope that the report might help you to improve reporting in your manuscript. Within the report you will find links to more information about the items that the tools check. These links include helpful papers, websites, or videos that explain why the item is important. While our screening tools aim to improve and maintain quality standards they may, on occasion, miss nuances specific to your study type or flag something incorrectly. Each tool has limitations that are described on the ScreenIT website. The tools screen the main file for the paper; they are not able to screen supplements stored in separate files. Please note that the Academic Editor had access to these comments while making a decision on your manuscript. The Academic Editor may ask that issues flagged in this report be addressed. If you would like to provide feedback on the ScreenIT tool, please email the team at ScreenIt@bih-charite.de. If you have questions or concerns about the review process, please contact the PLOS One office at plosone@plos.org.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses an important clinical issue and provides valuable data from Indonesia. Addressing these methodological and reporting issues would improve transparency, reproducibility, and the overall scientific contribution of the study.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for your efforts

1-. Introduction : Provides clear clinical background on CHD and its global burden. But ; some parts are slightly verbose and could be more concise and uimited mention of specific prior quantitative data to benchmark the problem.

2-Methods : There is well-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria and appropriate operational definitions (malnutrition, CHD classification). However , as retrospective design limits causal inference. High missingness in clinical variables, with no imputation. Limited variables (no disease severity, socioeconomic or dietary data) as well as the burden score, although useful, is not externally validated.

3- Results : Well-structured presentation (tables, figures, logical flow) are provided with clear reporting of baseline characteristics and CHD distribution. However: missing clinical data: High missingness in symptoms/complications may introduce bias (complete-case analysis). Limited variables: Lack of key factors such as: disease severity (echocardiographic details),surgical/intervention history and socioeconomic and dietary information. Also still weakness regarding the some findings are descriptive without deeper statistical comparison (e.g., between CHD subtypes). Small subgroup sizes (e.g., cyanotic CHD) reduce robustness.The burden score distribution is skewed, limiting interpretability

4-Discussion : Interprets findings in line with existing literature and provides physiological explanations for malnutrition.Need to avoid repetition of some explanations of results. There is limited discussion of unexpected findings (e.g., non-significant cyanotic CHD). Could better explore health system implications or policy relevance

5-Conclusion : Slightly long and repetitive. Could include a more actionable final recommendation.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript addresses an important topic which is the burden of malnutrition among children with CHD in a low-resource country and includes a relatively large outpatient cohort (n = 606). The study is clinically relevant and provides useful epidemiological data from Indonesia, where such information is limited. However, there are several important methodological and reporting issues that should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1-Nutritional assessment is inadequately defined. This is the most important weakness. The authors state that nutritional status was assessed using: “WHO growth standards and age-appropriate weight-for-age evaluation.” However, they never specify which anthropometric indices were used; WHO 2006 or WHO 2007 references, whether z-scores were calculated

the exact cutoffs for underweight/severe underweight, whether BMI-for-age or weight-for-height was used in older children. Weight-for-age is not recommended for children older than approximately 10 years and is inappropriate for adolescents.

The authors should clearly describe: anthropometric index, reference standards, z-score thresholds

age-specific assessment methods.

2. “Burden score” lacks validation. The cumulative burden score is one of the main predictors in the regression.however:

it is entirely investigator-created, no rationale is provided, no validation, andno reproducibility assessment.

The authors should justify construction of this score or acknowledge its exploratory nature more explicitly.

3. Confounding by disease severity.The regression model adjusts only for age, sex, CHD physiology, and burden score.

It does not account for important confounders such as surgical status, repaired vs unrepaired lesions, defect size, heart failure severity, pulmonary hypertension severity, socioeconomic status, genetic syndromes, prematurity.

4. Cross-sectional design limits causal interpretation.Several statements imply causality such as "healthcare utilization increased because of malnutrition" or "malnutrition leads to greater clinical burden"

Because exposure and outcome were measured simultaneously, only associations—not causal relationships—can be inferred.

This wording should be revised throughout the manuscript.

5. Missing data: The authors acknowledge substantial missingness in symptoms and complications but do not report: percentage missing for each variable, which variables entered regression, number of patients excluded from complete-case analysis.

A flow diagram showing exclusions from regression would improve transparency.

6.Small cyanotic subgroup: Only 31 patients had cyanotic CHD (5.1%). Consequently, statistical power is limited, adjusted OR estimates are unstable, the nonsignificant findings should not be interpreted as evidence of no association.

This limitation should be emphasized.

7- Classification of CHD: Grouping lesions simply as cyanotic and acyanotic oversimplifies disease severity. for example,

large VSD and small VSD are biologically very different. Hemodynamic significance would have been more informative.

8- Age categories: Combining adolescents with neonates as the regression reference group is statistically convenient but clinically illogical. These populations are fundamentally different. Alternative modeling approaches should be considered.

9- Discussion: The Discussion largely repeats textbook mechanisms. It would benefit from more comparison with previous Southeast Asian studies, more emphasis on why Indonesian findings differ, discussion of tertiary referral bias.

10-Generalizability: This is a single-center tertiary referral hospital.The study population likely includes more complex CHD than community hospitals. Generalizability should be discussed more explicitly.

11- Introduction: The Introduction is somewhat long and contains several paragraphs describing basic CHD physiology that most readers already know. It could be shortened.

12- Methods: Specify ICD coding method, echocardiographic diagnostic criteria, who performed nutritional assessment.

13- Tables:

Table 1 duplicates nutritional status and malnutrition status. One of these could be removed.

14- Figures: Figure legends are generally good. However, Figure 2 would benefit from including exact percentages.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Safaa ELMeneza

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Doaa Mohamed El Amrousy

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: report_10.64898+2026.05.23.26353925.pdf

pone.0351014.s008.pdf (586.4KB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

pone.0351014.s009.docx (11.3KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Oct 8;21(10):e0351014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351014.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


7 Aug 2026

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript title: Nutritional status, clinical burden, and healthcare utilization among pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease: A retrospective cross-sectional study from Indonesia

Journal: PLOS ONE

Dear Academic Editor and Reviewers,

We sincerely thank the Academic Editor and all reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript, supplementary materials, and supporting tables to improve clarity, reporting completeness, and transparency. Below, we respond to each comment point-by-point. Reviewer comments are reproduced in abbreviated form, followed by our responses and the corresponding changes made in the revised submission.

Response to the Academic Editor and Journal Requirements

Comment: Please ensure that the manuscript meets PLOS ONE style requirements, including file naming.

Response: We have checked the revised submission package and aligned the manuscript and supporting files with the requested PLOS ONE formatting requirements. File names and supplementary materials have been organized for resubmission in the required format.

Changes made: The manuscript, revised manuscript with tracked changes, response letter, and supplementary files have been prepared as separate submission items.

Comment: Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript.

Response: We have retained the ethics statement only in the Methods section and removed any duplicate ethics wording from other parts of the manuscript.

Changes made: The revised Methods now contain the sole ethics statement for the study.

Comment: Please clarify the availability of the underlying data.

Response: We have updated the Data Availability Statement to indicate that the study dataset has been de-identified and that the underlying data are provided in a form that protects patient confidentiality. We also clarified that the data were derived from retrospective medical records and that any direct identifiers were removed before analysis.

Changes made: The revised statement reflects the institutional and ethical constraints while preserving transparency about data access.

Comment: Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure S1 which you refer to in your text.

Response: We have uploaded Supporting Information Figure S1 and ensured that it is referenced consistently in the Results and supplementary material.

Changes made: The figure accompanies the revised manuscript package.

Comment: Please review any cited works recommended by reviewers and include only those that are relevant.

Response: We reviewed the suggested references and retained only those that were relevant to the revised discussion and reporting. We did not add references that were not necessary for the manuscript’s scientific argument.

Changes made: The reference list was checked for relevance and consistency with the revised text.

Reviewer #1

Comment: Automated screening report from ScreenIT.

Response: We appreciate the automated screening report. We reviewed the reporting checklist carefully and revised the manuscript and supplementary files to improve completeness, transparency, and reproducibility where applicable.

Changes made: Key reporting items addressed in the revision include the methods description, missing-data reporting, data availability statement, and supplementary figure inclusion.

Reviewer #2

Comment: The manuscript addresses an important clinical issue and provides valuable data from Indonesia. Addressing methodological and reporting issues would improve transparency, reproducibility, and the overall scientific contribution of the study.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment. In response, we revised the Methods, Results, Discussion, and supplementary materials to improve methodological clarity, reporting transparency, and reproducibility. We also strengthened the data availability language and clarified the handling of missing data and exploratory variables.

Changes made: The revised manuscript now presents the study design, variables, and supplementary completeness assessment more explicitly.

Reviewer #3

Comment: The Introduction is clear but could be more concise and include more targeted quantitative context.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We revised the Introduction by removing repetitive background information and streamlining the clinical rationale to improve readability. We also strengthened the epidemiologic context by incorporating concise quantitative evidence from recent large-scale studies on the global burden of congenital heart disease and growth impairment, while refining the description of the Indonesian knowledge gap and the rationale for evaluating nutritional status, clinical burden, and healthcare utilization in a tertiary referral outpatient population.

Changes made: The Introduction was revised to (1) reduce redundant background information, (2) incorporate quantitative epidemiologic evidence to better contextualize the burden of congenital heart disease, (3) clarify the existing evidence gap in Indonesia, and (4) more clearly align the study rationale and objectives with the clinical importance of nutritional status and healthcare utilization in pediatric congenital heart disease.

Comment: The Methods are well-defined, but the retrospective design limits causal inference; there is high missingness in clinical variables, no imputation, and limited variables.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We clarified that the retrospective study design supports assessment of associations rather than causal inference. We also expanded the description of missing data handling by specifying that missingness was primarily confined to symptom and complication variables, no imputation was performed because of the non-random pattern of missingness, and complete-case analysis was used for regression. In addition, we clarified that disease severity, socioeconomic characteristics, and dietary information were not consistently available in the medical records and therefore could not be included in the analyses.

Changes made: The Methods were revised to strengthen the descriptions of missing data handling and variable availability, S1 Table summarizes data completeness across study variables, and the Limitations section explicitly acknowledges the absence of disease severity, socioeconomic, and dietary variables.

Comment: The Results are well structured, but missingness, limited variables, the lack of deeper comparisons, and small subgroups reduce robustness.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We clarified the extent of missing data, reported data completeness, and acknowledged the limited statistical power of small subgroups. We also emphasized that subgroup findings are descriptive and that the analyses should be interpreted as exploratory.

Changes made: Relevant revisions were incorporated into the Results, with additional information provided in the supplementary tables (S1–S5), including data completeness, sensitivity analyses, and model diagnostics.

Comment: The Discussion repeats result explanations and could better address unexpected findings and health-system implications.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We revised the Discussion to reduce repetition of descriptive result summaries and place greater emphasis on interpretation. Specifically, we expanded the discussion of the unexpected finding that cyanotic congenital heart disease was not independently associated with malnutrition after multivariable adjustment by comparing our findings with evidence from Southeast Asian studies and discussing potential explanations, including differences in study populations, outpatient versus surgical cohorts, and cumulative hemodynamic burden. We also incorporated a discussion of tertiary referral bias and explained how the role of Adam Malik General Hospital as a regional referral center may have influenced the observed prevalence of malnutrition, pulmonary hypertension, and healthcare utilization. Finally, we strengthened the discussion of the clinical and health-system implications by emphasizing the importance of early nutritional surveillance, multidisciplinary outpatient follow-up, and resource allocation for children with congenital heart disease in resource-limited settings.

Changes made: The Discussion has been revised to (1) reduce repetition of mechanistic explanations, (2) include comparisons with Indonesian and Southeast Asian studies, (3) provide a more detailed interpretation of the non-significant association between cyanotic CHD and malnutrition, (4) discuss the impact of tertiary referral bias on the study findings, and (5) expand the clinical and health-system implications for outpatient management in resource-limited settings.

Comment: The Conclusion is slightly long and repetitive and could end with a more actionable recommendation.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We shortened the Conclusion to emphasize the principal findings and strengthened the final statement with a more actionable recommendation on nutritional surveillance and multidisciplinary outpatient care.

Changes made: The Conclusion has been revised to improve conciseness and highlight the main clinical take-home message

Reviewer #4

Comment: Nutritional assessment is inadequately defined.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We revised the Methods to clearly specify the age-specific anthropometric assessment, reference standards, nutritional cutoffs, and outcome classification.

Changes made: The relevant methodological details have been added to the Methods section.

Comment: The burden score lacks validation.

Response: We agree that the burden score is investigator-developed and exploratory rather than externally validated. We revised the manuscript to state this explicitly and to caution readers that the score should be interpreted as a pragmatic summary of cumulative symptoms and complications, not as a validated clinical instrument.

Changes made: The Methods and Limitations now describe the burden score as exploratory and unvalidated.

Comment: Confounding by disease severity was not fully addressed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We clarified that detailed disease-severity variables were unavailable in the retrospective dataset and that residual confounding may remain.

Changes made: The Limitations now explicitly acknowledge the absence of detailed echocardiographic severity data and the potential for residual confounding.

Comment: Because this is a cross-sectional study, causal wording should be revised.

Response: We revised causal phrasing throughout the manuscript and now describe the findings as associations rather than causal effects. Statements implying that malnutrition causes higher utilization, or that utilization increased because of malnutrition, were rewritten to avoid causal inference.

Changes made: The Discussion and Conclusion now use association-based language consistently.

Comment: Missing data were not sufficiently transparent.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We clarified the completeness of study variables and the approach used to handle missing data

Changes made: S1 Table now summarizes missingness across variables, and the Methods describe the complete case analysis and the absence of data imputation.

Comment: The cyanotic subgroup is small and estimates are unstable.

Response: We agree. We now emphasize that the cyanotic subgroup is small and that the corresponding estimates should be interpreted cautiously. We avoid overinterpreting the non-significant findings as evidence of no association.

Changes made: The Results and Discussion now explicitly note the limited precision in the cyanotic subgroup.

Comment: Classification of CHD by cyanotic versus acyanotic physiology oversimplifies disease severity.

Response: We acknowledge this limitation. CHD was classified as cyanotic or non-cyanotic, the most reproducible classification available because lesion-level hemodynamic severity data were not consistently available in the retrospective records. We have clarified this in the manuscript.

Changes made: The rationale for using cyanotic versus non-cyanotic classification is now clarified in the Methods and acknowledged as a limitation in the Discussion.

Comment: Age categories combine clinically different groups, and the reference group is not ideal.

Response: We agree. Because of sparse observations in the extreme age groups, neonatal and adolescent categories were combined in the primary model to improve model stability. We also performed a sensitivity analysis using the original age-group classification, which yielded consistent results.

Changes made: The Methods now clarify the rationale for the grouped age categories and the sensitivity analysis has been added to the Supplementary Material.

Comment: The Discussion is repetitive and should compare findings more strongly with Southeast Asian literature and referral bias.

Response: We revised the Discussion to reduce repetition and expanded comparison with regional and international literature. We also added a clearer explanation of why findings from a tertiary referral hospital may reflect referral bias and may not be directly generalizable to community settings.

Changes made: The revised Discussion now includes a more explicit interpretation of regional context and tertiary-care bias.

Comment: Generalizability should be discussed more explicitly.

Response: We added a stronger statement that the study reflects a single tertiary referral center in Indonesia and therefore may overrepresent more complex cases. We note that the findings are most directly applicable to similar referral-based outpatient populations.

Changes made: The Limitations now explicitly address external validity.

Comment: The Introduction is too long and still contains extensive general background on congenital heart disease. It should be shortened further while maintaining the study rationale.

Response: We agree and have further streamlined the Introduction by removing redundant background information while retaining the essential scientific rationale, study context, and objective.

Changes made: The Introduction has been shortened from three paragraphs to two more concise paragraphs, with reduced general background on CHD and greater emphasis on the knowledge gap, study rationale, and study objective.

Comment: Methods should specify ICD coding, echocardiographic criteria, and who performed nutritional assessment.

Response: We revised the Methods to clarify patient identification using hospital diagnostic records, echocardiographic confirmation of CHD, and the procedures used for routine nutritional assessment.

Changes made: Additional details on patient identification, echocardiographic confirmation, and nutritional assessment have been added to the Methods section.

Comment: Table 1 duplicates nutritional status and malnutrition status.

Response: We reviewed the tables and retained a single clear presentation of nutritional categories so that the table layout is less repetitive and easier to interpret.

Changes made: The table presentation has been streamlined accordingly.

Comment: Figure 2 would benefit from including exact percentages.

Response: We revised the Figure 2 legend to include the exact percentages for each nutritional status category across age groups.

Changes made: Figure 2 and its legend were updated for clarity.

We again thank the Academic Editor and the reviewers for their helpful comments. We believe the revisions have substantially improved the manuscript’s clarity, transparency, and interpretability. We hope the revised version is now suitable for further consideration.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSE_TO_EDITORIAL_auresp_1.docx

pone.0351014.s010.docx (14.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded

31 Aug 2026

Dear Dr. Amelia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS One’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 30 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS One offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: The conclusion needs improvement:

- States that malnutrition was associated with increased healthcare utilization, yet this was not demonstrated in the final multivariable model.

- Some wording implies stronger inference than can be supported by a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

- The conclusion does not sufficiently acknowledge uncertainty caused by missing data and unmeasured confounders.

-Recommendations for practice are somewhat broad and not directly linked to specific interventions.

To improve, I suggest :

- States that malnutrition was associated with increased healthcare utilization, yet this was not demonstrated in the final multivariable model.

-Some wording implies stronger inference than can be supported by a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

-The conclusion does not sufficiently acknowledge uncertainty caused by missing data and unmeasured confounders.

-Recommendations for practice are somewhat broad and not directly linked to specific interventions.

Reviewer #4: The authors performed the required changes. The manuscript greatly improved and is now ready for publication.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Safaa ELMeneza

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Oct 8;21(10):e0351014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351014.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2


2 Sep 2026

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript to address all points raised. We clarified that healthcare utilization was associated with malnutrition in the univariable analysis and remained significant in the sensitivity analysis, but was not included in the primary multivariable model. We revised the manuscript to present the findings as observational associations and removed wording that could imply causal relationships or demonstrated intervention effects. We also added explicit acknowledgment of substantial missingness in clinical variables, unavailable measures of disease severity, and potential residual confounding. Finally, we revised the clinical recommendations to focus on routine nutritional screening and closer nutritional assessment and multidisciplinary follow-up for younger children and those with greater clinical burden, without implying demonstrated treatment effects. We believe these revisions have addressed all of the reviewer’s concerns and improved the clarity and appropriate interpretation of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

pone.0351014.s011.docx (21.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded

17 Sep 2026

Nutritional status, clinical burden, and healthcare utilization among pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease: A retrospective cross-sectional study from Indonesia

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Amelia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS One’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 17 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS One offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please try to improve the conclusion, I recommend to:

-Use more cautious language that reflects the limitations of the retrospective cross-sectional design.

-Provide more specific and actionable practice recommendations that are directly informed by the study findings.

-Explicitly acknowledge the potential impact of missing data and unmeasured confounding on the results.

-Clearly distinguish between findings observed in unadjusted analyses and those retained in the final multivariable model.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Oct 8;21(10):e0351014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351014.r007

Author response to Decision Letter 3


19 Sep 2026

We sincerely thank the Academic Editor for the additional guidance regarding the Conclusion. We have carefully revised the Conclusion to address all four points raised in the latest editorial comments. We also reviewed the concerns raised by Reviewer #3 in the previous revision round and have ensured that these issues are now explicitly and consistently reflected in the revised Conclusion.

Comment 1

Academic Editor:

“Use more cautious language that reflects the limitations of the retrospective cross-sectional design.”

Response:

Thank you for this important comment. We revised the Conclusion to use more cautious language and to avoid causal interpretation. The revised text explicitly states that the retrospective cross-sectional design does not establish temporal or causal relationships. Throughout the Conclusion, we use association-based wording rather than causal language.

The revised text states:

“These findings should be interpreted cautiously because the retrospective cross-sectional design does not establish temporal or causal relationships, while missing clinical data and unmeasured disease severity may have influenced the observed associations.”

This revision also directly addresses the concern raised by Reviewer #3 in the previous revision round that some wording could imply stronger inference than supported by a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

Comment 2

Academic Editor:

“Provide more specific and actionable practice recommendations that are directly informed by the study findings.”

Response:

Thank you for this recommendation. We have revised the practice implication in the Conclusion to provide a more specific recommendation that directly reflects the primary multivariable findings. Rather than providing a broad recommendation to monitor nutritional status, we now recommend routine nutritional screening during pediatric CHD follow-up, with particular attention to younger children and those with greater documented clinical burden.

The revised text states:

“In practice, routine nutritional screening during pediatric CHD follow-up, with particular attention to younger children and those with greater documented clinical burden, may facilitate earlier nutritional assessment and appropriate multidisciplinary management.”

This recommendation is directly informed by the observed association between younger age groups, higher cumulative clinical burden, and greater odds of malnutrition in the primary multivariable model. The cautious wording “may facilitate” avoids implying that the intervention itself has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes.

This revision also addresses Reviewer #3’s previous comment that the practice recommendations were broad and not sufficiently linked to specific actions.

Comment 3

Academic Editor:

“Explicitly acknowledge the potential impact of missing data and unmeasured confounding on the results.”

Response:

We agree with the Academic Editor. The revised Conclusion now explicitly acknowledges both missing clinical data and unmeasured disease severity as potential sources of uncertainty in the observed associations.

The revised text states:

“These findings should be interpreted cautiously because the retrospective cross-sectional design does not establish temporal or causal relationships, while missing clinical data and unmeasured disease severity may have influenced the observed associations.”

This wording reflects the limitations already described in the manuscript, including incomplete documentation of several clinical variables and the limited availability of detailed indicators of disease severity. We use “may have influenced” rather than attributing a specific direction or magnitude of bias because the available data do not permit us to determine the extent or direction of such effects.

This revision directly addresses Reviewer #3’s previous concern regarding uncertainty related to missing data and unmeasured confounding.

Comment 4

Academic Editor:

“Clearly distinguish between findings observed in unadjusted analyses and those retained in the final multivariable model.”

Response:

Thank you for highlighting this important distinction. We have revised the Conclusion to clearly separate the findings from the univariable analysis, the sensitivity analysis, and the primary multivariable model.

The revised Conclusion now states:

“Younger age groups and higher cumulative clinical burden were associated with greater odds of malnutrition in the primary multivariable model. Healthcare utilization was associated with malnutrition in univariable analysis and remained statistically significant in the sensitivity analysis, but it was not retained in the primary multivariable model.”

This wording makes clear that healthcare utilization was not an independent predictor retained in the primary multivariable model. In contrast, younger age groups and higher cumulative clinical burden represent the findings retained in the primary model.

This revision directly addresses Reviewer #3’s previous comment that the earlier Conclusion stated an association between malnutrition and increased healthcare utilization without sufficiently clarifying that this association was not demonstrated in the final primary multivariable model.

Clarification regarding the previous Reviewer #3 comments

We would also like to clarify that the four issues identified by the Academic Editor in the current revision correspond closely to the concerns previously raised by Reviewer #3 regarding the Conclusion. These concerns had been addressed during the previous revision, but we have further strengthened and made the relevant statements explicit in the Conclusion in response to the Academic Editor’s latest guidance.

Specifically, the revised Conclusion now explicitly addresses the four areas as follows:

Causal interpretation: We state that the retrospective cross-sectional design does not establish temporal or causal relationships.

Practice recommendations: We provide a specific recommendation for routine nutritional screening during pediatric CHD follow-up, particularly for younger children and those with greater documented clinical burden.

Missing data and unmeasured confounding: We explicitly acknowledge that missing clinical data and unmeasured disease severity may have influenced the observed associations.

Analytical distinction: We clearly distinguish the healthcare utilization finding from the univariable and sensitivity analyses and identify younger age and higher cumulative clinical burden as the findings retained in the primary multivariable model.

We have therefore revised the Conclusion to ensure that the final interpretation remains appropriately cautious, transparent, and directly aligned with the statistical analyses presented in the manuscript.

Revised Conclusion

The revised Conclusion reads:

“Pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease at Adam Malik General Hospital had a substantial burden of malnutrition, with nearly half of the cohort classified as underweight or severely underweight. Younger age groups and higher cumulative clinical burden were associated with greater odds of malnutrition in the primary multivariable model. Healthcare utilization was associated with malnutrition in univariable analysis and remained statistically significant in the sensitivity analysis, but it was not retained in the primary multivariable model. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because the retrospective cross-sectional design does not establish temporal or causal relationships, while missing clinical data and unmeasured disease severity may have influenced the observed associations. In practice, routine nutritional screening during pediatric CHD follow-up, with particular attention to younger children and those with greater documented clinical burden, may facilitate earlier nutritional assessment and appropriate multidisciplinary management. Prospective studies using standardized nutritional and clinical severity measures are needed to confirm these associations.”

We appreciate the Academic Editor’s guidance, which has helped us further improve the precision and transparency of the Conclusion. We believe that the revised version now clearly distinguishes the primary multivariable findings from secondary analyses, appropriately acknowledges the study limitations, and provides practice implications that are directly informed by the study findings.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to academic editor.docx

pone.0351014.s012.docx (40.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded

23 Sep 2026

Nutritional status, clinical burden, and healthcare utilization among pediatric outpatients with congenital heart disease: A retrospective cross-sectional study from Indonesia

PONE-D-26-24373R3

Dear Dr. Amelia,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded

PONE-D-26-24373R3

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Amelia,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS One and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS One Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Hany Mahmoud Abo-Haded

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Completeness assessment of variables included in the retrospective pediatric congenital heart disease cohort.

    Abbreviations: CHD, congenital heart disease. Data completeness was evaluated across all study variables included in the retrospective outpatient cohort. Symptom- and complication-related variables demonstrated substantial missingness because of inconsistent retrospective clinical documentation. No imputation procedures were performed, and complete-case analysis was applied for multivariable regression modeling.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0351014.s001.docx (22.5KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Univariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with malnutrition among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

    Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 indicate increased odds of malnutrition.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0351014.s002.docx (19.5KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Sensitivity analysis using the original age-group classification in multivariable logistic regression.

    Sensitivity analysis was performed using the original age-group classification to evaluate the robustness of the primary multivariable logistic regression findings. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from logistic regression models with malnutrition as the dependent variable. Reference categories were non-cyanotic CHD, female sex, and preschool-aged children. Odds ratios greater than 1 indicate increased odds of malnutrition. NE = not estimable with reliable precision because of sparse observations and quasi-complete separation in the neonatal subgroup (n = 4). Despite instability in this subgroup, the overall direction and magnitude of associations remained consistent with the primary analysis, supporting the robustness of the primary findings.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0351014.s003.docx (23KB, docx)
    S4 Table. Multicollinearity diagnostics for the multivariable logistic regression model.

    GVIF = generalized variance inflation factor. Adjusted GVIF was calculated as GVIF(1/(2×Df)) to account for variables with multiple degrees of freedom. Higher adjusted GVIF values indicate greater collinearity among predictors. All adjusted GVIF values remained below 5, suggesting no evidence of clinically significant multicollinearity within the final multivariable regression model. Df denotes degrees of freedom for each variable.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0351014.s004.docx (17.7KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Overall performance metrics of the multivariable logistic regression model.

    Model performance metrics were calculated to evaluate overall goodness-of-fit, explanatory performance, and classification accuracy of the final multivariable logistic regression model. Lower AIC, AICc, BIC, RMSE, and log-loss values indicate improved model fit. Tjur’s R2 reflects explanatory performance for binary outcomes, whereas PCP represents the proportion of correctly classified observations. Collectively, these metrics suggested acceptable overall model performance for exploratory clinical association analysis.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0351014.s005.docx (17.8KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Calibration plot of the final multivariable logistic regression model for malnutrition among pediatric congenital heart disease outpatients.

    Calibration plot demonstrating agreement between predicted and observed probabilities of malnutrition derived from the multivariable logistic regression model. The dashed diagonal line represents perfect calibration, indicating exact agreement between predicted and observed risk estimates. Blue points and the solid calibration curve represent bootstrap-corrected calibration estimates generated using 1,000 bootstrap resamples. Overall, the model demonstrated acceptable calibration across the observed range of predicted probabilities, although minor deviation from perfect calibration was observed at higher predicted probabilities.

    (TIF)

    pone.0351014.s006.tif (65.4KB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO EDITORIAL.docx

    pone.0351014.s007.docx (14.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: report_10.64898+2026.05.23.26353925.pdf

    pone.0351014.s008.pdf (586.4KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.docx

    pone.0351014.s009.docx (11.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSE_TO_EDITORIAL_auresp_1.docx

    pone.0351014.s010.docx (14.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

    pone.0351014.s011.docx (21.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to academic editor.docx

    pone.0351014.s012.docx (40.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the findings of this study were derived from retrospective pediatric medical records obtained at Adam Malik General Hospital. All data used for the analyses have been de-identified prior to sharing to protect participant confidentiality. The minimal dataset necessary to replicate the study findings is provided within the manuscript and Supporting information files. Researchers requiring additional de-identified data or further information regarding the dataset may contact the corresponding author (putri.amelia@usu.ac.id) or the study investigator (johnsonkannady@students.usu.ac.id). Requests will be considered in accordance with institutional policies, ethical requirements, and regulations governing the use of patient medical record data.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES