Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22559326›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of genomics and human genetics2012

Ethical issues with newborn screening in the genomics era.

Beth A Tarini, Aaron J Goldenberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of genomics and human genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Beth A TariniChild Health Evaluation and Research (CHEAR) Unit, Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. btarini@umich.edu
Aaron J Goldenberg

Funding

Training ProgramP50HG003390 · NHGRI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI MARSHALL, PATRICIA A. · 2004 to 2013
$8.8M
Improving Healthcare Delivery for Infants with Positive Newborn Screening ResultsK23HD057994 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI TARINI, BETH A · 2009 to 2013
$662k
NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG003390NHGRI NIH HHS P50HG003390NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD057994NICHD NIH HHS K23HD057994
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continued technological advances have made the prospect of routine whole-genome sequencing (WGS) imminent. To date, much of the discussion about WGS has focused on its application and use in clinical medicine. Relatively little attention has been paid to the potential integration of WGS into newborn screening programs. Given the structure and scope of these programs, it is possible that the early applications of WGS will occur in state-run newborn screening programs. Assessment of the pressing ethical issues currently facing the newborn screening community will provide insight into the challenges that lie ahead in the genomics era.

Indexed as

Dried Blood Spot TestingGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingGenomicsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PolicyHumansInfant, NewbornMandatory TestingNeonatal ScreeningState GovernmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22559326
PMCPMC3625041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.