ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2003
Ethical issues in newborn screening and the impact of new technologies.
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.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic newborn screening: public health policy considerations and recommendations.BMC medical genomics · 2017Article
- Newborn Screening for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia in India: What Do We Need to Watch Out for?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2016Article
- Stakeholder attitudes towards the role and application of informed consent for newborn bloodspot screening: a study protocol.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Efficacy of screening immune system function in at-risk newborns.The Australasian medical journal · 2014Review
- Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening.BMC health services research · 2012Article
- Expanded newborn screening: social and ethical issues.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
14618395What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.