ReviewJournal of medical biochemistry2015
Different Viewpoints: International Perspectives on Newborn Screening.
Review in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Financing and health system capacity for precision medicine in Asia: a six country landscape analysis.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Isobutyryl-coenzyme a dehydrogenase deficiency: disease, or non-disease?Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Review
- Non-Uptake of Newborn Screening in Planned Homebirth Is Associated with Preventive Health Practices for Infants: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Wilson and Jungner Revisited: Are Screening Criteria Fit for the 21st Century?International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- Review
- It All Depends What You Count-The Importance of Definitions in Evaluation of CF Screening Performance.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020Review
- Prenatal Screening Markers for Down Syndrome: Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive and Negative Expected Value Method.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2018Article
- Comparison of Spectrophotometric and Fluorimetric Methods in Evaluation of Biotinidase Deficiency.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2016Article
- Pediatric Laboratory Medicine: Some Aspects of Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome, Neonatal Screening, Reference and Critical Values.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Newborn blood-spot screening to detect potentially treatable disorders is widely practiced across the globe. However, there are great variations in practice, both in terms of disorders covered, screening technologies, disease definition, information provision, parental informed consent, and storage and disposal of residual specimens, partly reflecting the degree to which screening is the subject of explicit legislation (and thus public and media pressure) or is embedded in a general health care system and managed at an executive level. It is generally accepted that disorders to be screened for should comply with the ten Wilson and Jungner criteria, but the way that compliance is assessed ranges from broadly-based opinion surveys to detailed analysis of quantitative data. Consequently, even countries with comparable levels of economic development and health care show large differences in the number of disorders screened for. There are several areas on which there are no generally accepted guidelines: how should parents be informed about screening and to what extent should they be encouraged to regard screening as an option to choose to refuse? Is DNA mutation analysis acceptable as part of a screening protocol? How soon should the blood samples be destroyed once screening has been completed? As technology advances and the potential scope of screening expands at both the metabolite and genome level, challenging policy issues will have to be faced.
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.