Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25674778›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016

Improving newborn screening for cystic fibrosis using next-generation sequencing technology: a technical feasibility study.

Mei W Baker, Anne E Atkins, Suzanne K Cordovado, Miyono Hendrix, Marie C Earley, Philip M Farrell

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. International journal of neonatal screening · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Racial inequities and rareJournal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mei W BakerDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8707-1834
Anne E AtkinsNewborn Screening Laboratory, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Suzanne K CordovadoThe Newborn Screening and Molecular Biology Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Miyono HendrixThe Newborn Screening and Molecular Biology Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Marie C EarleyThe Newborn Screening and Molecular Biology Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Philip M FarrellDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany regions have implemented newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) using a limited panel of cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR) mutations after immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) analysis. We sought to assess the feasibility of further improving the screening using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology.

methodsAn NGS assay was used to detect 162 CFTR mutations/variants characterized by the CFTR2 project. We used 67 dried blood spots (DBSs) containing 48 distinct CFTR mutations to validate the assay. NGS assay was retrospectively performed on 165 CF screen-positive samples with one CFTR mutation.

resultsThe NGS assay was successfully performed using DNA isolated from DBSs, and it correctly detected all CFTR mutations in the validation. Among 165 screen-positive infants with one CFTR mutation, no additional disease-causing mutation was identified in 151 samples consistent with normal sweat tests. Five infants had a CF-causing mutation that was not included in this panel, and nine with two CF-causing mutations were identified.

conclusionThe NGS assay was 100% concordant with traditional methods. Retrospective analysis results indicate an IRT/NGS screening algorithm would enable high sensitivity, better specificity and positive predictive value (PPV). This study lays the foundation for prospective studies and for introducing NGS in NBS laboratories.

Indexed as

Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance RegulatorDried Blood Spot TestingFeasibility StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansInfant, NewbornMutationNeonatal ScreeningRetrospective StudiesSequence Analysis, DNACFTR protein, humanCystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator

Identifiers

PMID25674778
PMCPMC4802962
OpenAlexW2031566663

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.