ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014
Newborn screening: education, consent, and the residual blood spot. The position of the national society of genetic counselors.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the Gap between Scientific Advancement and Real-World Application: Pediatric Genetic Counseling for Common Syndromes and Single-Gene Disorders.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Screening of Newborns for Disorders with High Benefit-Risk Ratios Should Be Mandatory.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2016Article
- Storage and use of Newborn Screening Blood Specimens for Research: Assessing Public Opinion in Illinois.Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Newborn screening (NBS) is a minimally invasive lifesaving test. There is currently no federal mandate for NBS, thus states determine their own screening panel based on the recommendations of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborn and Children (SACHDNC), which was recently re-chartered as the Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (DACHDNC). After NBS is completed, a couple of residual blood spots remain. While some states allow these spots to be used for public health and scientific research purposes, parents are not always informed about these additional uses. This paper addresses the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC's) position about NBS and blood spot storage/use and the rationale for these positions. The National Society of Genetic Counselors strongly supports newborn screening for the uniform screening panel of conditions recommended by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. NSGC also supports storage and use of blood spot samples by newborn screening laboratories and transparent policies that govern these activities.
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.