Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27116003›Full record

SynthesisJournal of inherited metabolic disease2016

Appropriateness of newborn screening for classic galactosaemia: a systematic review.

L Varela-Lema, L Paz-Valinas, G Atienza-Merino, R Zubizarreta-Alberdi, R Vizoso Villares, M López-García

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of inherited metabolic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Extreme neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and kernicterus spectrum disorder in Denmark during the years 2000-2015.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

L Varela-LemaScientific-Technical Advice Unit (avalia-t), Galician Agency for Health Knowledge Management, ACIS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. avalia-t1@sergas.es.
L Paz-ValinasScientific-Technical Advice Unit (avalia-t), Galician Agency for Health Knowledge Management, ACIS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
G Atienza-MerinoScientific-Technical Advice Unit (avalia-t), Galician Agency for Health Knowledge Management, ACIS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
R Zubizarreta-AlberdiDepartment of Innovation and Public Health, Galician Health Authority, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
R Vizoso VillaresDepartment of Innovation and Public Health, Galician Health Authority, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
M López-GarcíaScientific-Technical Advice Unit (avalia-t), Galician Agency for Health Knowledge Management, ACIS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago · ESUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, there is no universal agreement on galactosaemia screening, fundamentally because of the risk-benefit uncertainties. We conducted two exhaustive systematic searches in the main electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, etc.) to recover relevant information about the disease and screening test/s in order to support decision making in Spain. All of the 45 studies identified that covered disease issues were retrospective case series or cross-sectional analysis (level-4 evidence). Studies consistently found that the majority of patients presented characteristic symptomatology before diagnosis. Long term disabilities were not significantly correlated with age of diagnosis, onset of dietary restriction or strict diet compliance. The five studies that provided accuracy data used different cut-off points and verification tests, and thus differed in their definitions of a positive case (level-3b evidence). The estimated sensitivity was 100 % and the specificity 99.9 %. The false-positive rate ranged from 0.0005 % to 0.25 %, and the PPV from 0 % to 64.3 %. The comparative clinical effectiveness in relation to not screening or implementation of other programs is unknown. In summary, existing evidence remains insufficient to establish the appropriateness of newborn screening for galactosaemia screening, although health benefits could be expected if early diagnosis and treatment is achieved. If screening is implemented in Spain, it would be important that a pilot programme be implemented to assess false positive rate and ensure that early diagnosis is not delayed.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesGalactosemiasHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatal ScreeningRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID27116003
OpenAlexW2344350847

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.