Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20498829›Full record

ArticleThe Clinical biochemist. Reviews2010

Newborn screening.

James J Pitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Current Status of Newborn Screening in Southeastern and Central Europe.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

James J PittVCGS Pathology, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Vic. 3052, Australia.
Royal Children's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early detection of many disorders, mainly inherited, is feasible with population-wide analysis of newborn dried blood spot samples. Phenylketonuria was the prototype disorder for newborn screening (NBS) and early dietary treatment has resulted in vastly improved outcomes for this disorder. Testing for primary hypothyroidism and cystic fibrosis (CF) was later added to NBS programs following the development of robust immunoassays and molecular testing. Current CF testing usually relies on a combined immunoreactive trypsin/mutation detection strategy. Multiplex testing for approximately 25 inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry is a relatively recent addition to NBS. The simultaneous introduction of many disorders has caused some re-evaluation of the traditional guidelines for NBS, because very rare disorders or disorders without good treatments can be included with minimal effort. NBS tests for many other disorders have been developed, but these are less uniformly applied or are currently considered developmental. This review focuses on Australasian NBS practices.

Identifiers

PMID20498829
PMCPMC2874432
OpenAlexW4301444087

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.