Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14618395›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2003

Ethical issues in newborn screening and the impact of new technologies.

Bridget Wilcken

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of pediatrics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Expanded newborn screening: social and ethical issues.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2010
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bridget WilckenThe New South Wales Newborn Screening and Biochemical Genetics Departments, and the University of Sydney, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, NSW 2145, Westmead, Australia. bridgetw@chw.edu.au

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical ethics is an integral part of medical practice. The general principles are well known: autonomy (the right to choose), beneficence (do good), non-maleficence (do no harm), and justice (be fair and equitable). In newborn screening these principles must be especially carefully applied, as the intervention, screening, has not been sought by the patient, but is a form of preventive medicine. In proposing a screening programme questions to be asked are: should we do it? (is there enough benefit, not too much harm?); can we do it? (do we have the technology and skill to find the cases sought); can we afford it? The first question, with its ethical implications, is often ignored. New issues have arisen with new technology, but underlying ethical themes are the same. Tandem mass spectrometry can be used to detect about 30 very rare disorders in a single test. Proving the benefit of this (and other screening tests) is difficult because randomised controlled trials seem impractical, because of power considerations, long follow-up time, and because there is already a perceived benefit. Best possible evidence of a lower order must be sought. In future, DNA microarray technology is likely to become sufficiently inexpensive to apply to newborn screening. It is difficult to predict all the future possibilities of DNA technology in this fast-moving field. Major ethical problems are likely with the ability to detect adult-onset disorders or susceptibility to these in babies. Under what circumstances would this be ethical? We need to start debating these issues.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalHumansInfant, NewbornMass SpectrometryMedical Laboratory ScienceMetabolism, Inborn ErrorsNeonatal ScreeningOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisGenetics and ReproductionHealth Care and Public Health

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.