Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26453363›Full record

ArticleJIMD reports2016

The Newborn Screening Paradox: Sensitivity vs. Overdiagnosis in VLCAD Deficiency.

Eugene Diekman, Monique de Sain-van der Velden, Hans Waterham, Leo Kluijtmans, Peter Schielen, Evert Ben van Veen, Sacha Ferdinandusse, Frits Wijburg, Gepke Visser

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JIMD reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Reducing False-Positive Results in Newborn Screening Using Machine Learning.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Follow-up status during the first 5 years of life for metabolic disorders on the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Eugene DiekmanDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Pediatrics, Laboratory Genetic Metabolic Diseases, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique de Sain-van der VeldenDepartment of Medical Genetics, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hans WaterhamDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Pediatrics, Laboratory Genetic Metabolic Diseases, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Leo KluijtmansDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Translational Metabolic Laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Peter SchielenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Reference Laboratory for Pre- and Neonatal Screening, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Evert Ben van VeenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Reference Laboratory for Pre- and Neonatal Screening, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Sacha FerdinandusseDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Pediatrics, Laboratory Genetic Metabolic Diseases, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frits WijburgDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Pediatrics, Laboratory Genetic Metabolic Diseases, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gepke VisserDepartment of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. gvisser4@umcutrecht.nl.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLEmma Kinderziekenhuis · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo improve the efficacy of newborn screening (NBS) for very long chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency (VLCADD). PATIENTS AND

methodsData on all dried blood spots collected by the Dutch NBS from October 2007 to 2010 (742.728) were included. Based solely on the C14:1 levels (cutoff ≥0.8 μmol/L), six newborns with VLCADD had been identified through NBS during this period. The ratio of C14:1 over C2 was calculated. DNA of all blood spots with a C14:1/C2 ratio of ≥0.020 was isolated and sequenced. Children homozygous or compound heterozygous for mutations in the ACADVL gene were traced back and invited for detailed clinical, biochemical, and genetic evaluation.

resultsRetrospective analysis based on the C14:1/C2 ratio with a cutoff of ≥0.020 identified an additional five children with known ACADVL mutations and low enzymatic activity. All were still asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis (age 2-5 years). Increasing the cutoff to ≥0.023 resulted in a sensitivity of 93% and a positive predictive value of 37%. The sensitivity of the previously used screening approach (C14:1 ≥0.8) was 50%.

conclusionThis study shows that the ratio C14:1/C2 is a more sensitive marker than C14:1 for identifying VLCADD patients in NBS. However, as these patients were all asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, this suggests that a more sensitive screening approach may also identify individuals who may never develop clinical disease. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to establish the risk of these VLCADD-deficient individuals for developing clinical signs and symptoms.

Indexed as

BiomarkerC14:1C2Newborn screeningVLCADD

Identifiers

PMID26453363
PMCPMC4864775
OpenAlexW1959892326

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.