Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28374951›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part A2017

Newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy: The views of affected families and adults.

Felicity K Boardman, Philip J Young, Frances E Griffiths

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Newborn screening for haemophilia: The views of families and adults living with haemophilia in the UK.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. The role of experiential knowledge within attitudes towards genetic carrier screening: A comparison of people with and without experience of spinal muscular atrophy.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Felicity K BoardmanDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3268-6276
Philip J YoungSchool of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Frances E GriffithsDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
University of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is one of the leading genetic causes of infant death worldwide. However, due to a lack of treatments, SMA has historically fallen short of Wilson-Jungner criteria. While studies have explored the acceptability of expanded newborn screening to the general public, the views of affected families have been largely overlooked. This is in spite of the potential for direct impacts on them and their unique positioning to consider the value of early diagnosis. We have previously reported data on attitudes toward pre-conception and prenatal genetic screening for SMA among affected families (adults with SMA [n = 82] and family members [n = 255]). Here, using qualitative interview [n = 36] and survey data [n = 337], we report the views of this same cohort toward newborn screening. The majority (70%) of participants were in favor, however, all subgroups (except adults with type II) preferred pre-conception and/or prenatal screening to newborn screening. Key reasons for newborn screening support were: (1) the potential for improved support; (2) the possibility of enrolling pre-symptomatic children on clinical trials. Key reasons for non-support were: (1) concerns about impact on the early experiences of the family; (2) inability to treat. Importantly, participants did not view the potential for inaccurate typing as a significant obstacle to the launch of a population-wide screening program. This study underscores the need to include families affected by genetic diseases within consultations on screening. This is particularly important for conditions such as SMA which challenge traditional screening criteria, and for which new therapeutics are emerging.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingNeonatal ScreeningCohort StudiesEarly DiagnosisFamilyFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMuscular Atrophy, SpinalPregnancybloodspotethicsnewborn genetic screeningsocial implicationsspinal muscular atrophy

Identifiers

PMID28374951
PMCPMC5485005
OpenAlexW2604571130

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.