ArticleJournal of inherited metabolic disease2007
Structures for clinical follow-up: newborn screening.
Article in Journal of inherited metabolic disease, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- An evaluation of U.S. federal investments in newborn screening: successes, gaps, and future directions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Supporting family adaptation to presymptomatic and "untreatable" conditions in an era of expanded newborn screening.Journal of pediatric psychology · 2009Article
- Newborn blood spot screening: new opportunities, old problems.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical follow-up of children identified by newborn screening is critical in ensuring that the short-term and long-term needs of the newborn infant are managed. Within the United States, one of the biggest challenges in the newborn screening programme is clinical follow-up, and there still remains wide variation in practice patterns among states on how infants are followed up. In addition, there is lack of consistency in the treatment and diagnostic protocols used by health care providers. There is growing interest in the establishment of a systematic process for follow-up and for the development of a nationwide infrastructure that will ensure that all children will be provided consistent and effective treatment in a timely manner. Within this framework of optimal diagnosis and therapy, there must also be opportunities to study the natural history of these conditions, to monitor short- and long-term health outcomes, to assist with policy decision-making, to validate the effectiveness of screening, to define the clinical spectrum of the diseases, and to provide opportunities for the advancement of novel therapeutic interventions and screening/diagnostic technologies. It will only be through the development of a structured clinical follow-up system that we will be able to make certain these newborn infants are provided the most appropriate treatment for their disease variants and allow researchers to make more rapid advances in improving the clinical management of these conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.