Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23508696›Full record

ArticleJournal of inherited metabolic disease2013

Impact of new screening technologies: should we screen and does phenotype influence this decision?

James Robert Bonham

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of inherited metabolic disease, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Newborn bloodspot screening policy framework for Australia.The Australasian medical journal · 2015
    Review
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.

James Robert BonhamDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, S10 2TH, UK. Jim.bonham@sch.nhs.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The early detection offered by newborn screening for phenylketonuria clearly demonstrates the benefits for patients with inherited metabolic disorders of well organised screening programmes. It is therefore perhaps surprising that 20 years after the introduction of electrospray MS/MS methods to support expanded newborn screening that considerable international variation in practice, not linked to economic factors, exists. It is likely that the commonly used criteria to assess the suitability of a disorder for screening need to be re-appraised as they apply to rare disorders. In addition, national differences in the pattern of policy making may influence the strategy adopted and these different approaches need to be scrutinised more closely. Despite this contextual variation a number of real issues do need to be addressed as the range of conditions included in screening programmes continues to increase. These include the need for well organised outcome studies based upon agreed case definitions and comparable treatment regimens; the need for appropriate information for parents to support them before and during the screening odyssey; an improved understanding of the impact of false positive results and in particular a clearer understanding of the way in which some of the problems resulting from false positive results can be avoided or ameliorated; the challenge offered by mild or atypical screen positive cases and the consequent design of proportionate treatment options. A thorough understanding of the genetic, biochemical and clinical features of screen positive cases supported by effective international outcome studies is required to optimise both screening and treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Early DiagnosisHumansInfant, NewbornMass ScreeningNeonatal ScreeningOutcome Assessment, Health CarePhenotypePhenylketonurias

Identifiers

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.