ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2015
Applying public health screening criteria: how does universal newborn screening compare to universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome in adults with colorectal cancer?
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2015. 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.
- Wilson and Jungner Revisited: Are Screening Criteria Fit for the 21st Century?International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- Universal screening of colorectal tumors for lynch syndrome: a survey of patient experiences and opinions.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2024Article
- Is Our Newborn Screening Working Well? A Literature Review of Quality Requirements for Newborn Blood Spot Screening (NBS) Infrastructure and Procedures.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Review
- A framework to build capacity for a reflex-testing program for Lynch syndrome.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities.Current genetic medicine reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Institutions have increasingly begun to adopt universal tumor screening (UTS) programs whereby tumors from all newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are screened to identify who should be offered germline testing for Lynch syndrome (the most common cause of hereditary CRC). Given limited information about the impact of universal screening programs to detect hereditary disease in adults, we apply criteria used to evaluate public health screening programs and compare and contrast UTS with universal newborn screening (NBS) for the purpose of examining ethical implications and anticipating potential outcomes of UTS. Both UTS and a core set of NBS conditions clearly meet most of the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria. However, many state NBS panels include additional conditions that do not meet several of these criteria, and there is currently insufficient data to confirm that UTS meets some of these criteria. Comparing UTS and NBS with regard to newer screening criteria raises additional issues that require attention for both UTS and NBS. Comparisons also highlight the importance of evaluating the implementation of genomic tests to ensure or improve their effectiveness at reducing morbidity and mortality while minimizing potential harms.
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.