Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26702401›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2015

Showing Value in Newborn Screening: Challenges in Quantifying the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Early Detection of Phenylketonuria and Cystic Fibrosis.

Scott D Grosse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

1 author.

Scott D GrosseNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA; sgrosse@cdc.gov ; Tel.: +1-404-498-3074.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision makers sometimes request information on the cost savings, cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit of public health programs. In practice, quantifying the health and economic benefits of population-level screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is challenging. It requires that one specify the frequencies of health outcomes and events, such as hospitalizations, for a cohort of children with a given condition under two different scenarios-with or without NBS. Such analyses also assume that everything else, including treatments, is the same between groups. Lack of comparable data for representative screened and unscreened cohorts that are exposed to the same treatments following diagnosis can result in either under- or over-statement of differences. Accordingly, the benefits of early detection may be understated or overstated. This paper illustrates these common problems through a review of past economic evaluations of screening for two historically significant conditions, phenylketonuria and cystic fibrosis. In both examples qualitative judgments about the value of prompt identification and early treatment to an affected child were more influential than specific numerical estimates of lives or costs saved.

Indexed as

cost-benefitcost-effectivenesscystic fibrosisgenetic testinghealth economicsneonatal screeningphenylketonuria

Identifiers

PMID26702401
PMCPMC4686149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.