ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2008
Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Effects of immediate telephone follow-up with providers on sweat chloride test timing after cystic fibrosis newborn screening identifies a single mutation.The Journal of pediatrics · 2013Article
- A tailored approach to family-centered genetic counseling for cystic fibrosis newborn screening: the Wisconsin model.Journal of genetic counseling · 2011Article
- Psychosocial consequences of false-positive newborn screens for cystic fibrosis.Qualitative health research · 2011Article
- Population based allele frequencies of disease associated polymorphisms in the Personalized Medicine Research Project.BMC genetics · 2010Article
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
Newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) has evolved considerably from its beginnings. We review the early history of NBS in the USA and the evolution of CF NBS from its conception in observational studies, to the development of mass-screening methodology in the 1970s, and to its early applications in the USA and other countries. We review the development of current CF NBS algorithms, particularly the development of those used in the Wisconsin randomized controlled trial, and discuss the comparative utility of different algorithms. We also discuss the identified nutritional and respiratory benefits of CF NBS, discuss treatment strategies for newborns identified with CF, and also discuss opportunities for slowing the progression of this disease.
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.