Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28471435›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2017

Genomic sequencing in cystic fibrosis newborn screening: what works best, two-tier predefined CFTR mutation panels or second-tier CFTR panel followed by third-tier sequencing?

Robert J Currier, Stan Sciortino, Ruiling Liu, Tracey Bishop, Rasoul Alikhani Koupaei, Lisa Feuchtbaum

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Racial inequities and rareJournal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A two-year pilot study.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Primary care providers' role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Translating Molecular Technologies into Routine Newborn Screening Practice.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Role of ExtendedInternational journal of neonatal screening · 2020
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert J CurrierGenetic Disease Screening Program, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California, USA.
Stan SciortinoGenetic Disease Screening Program, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California, USA.
Ruiling LiuGenetic Disease Screening Program, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California, USA.
Tracey BishopGenetic Disease Screening Program, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California, USA.
Rasoul Alikhani KoupaeiGenetic Disease Screening Program, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California, USA.
Lisa FeuchtbaumGenetic Disease Screening Program, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California, USA.
California Department of Public Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to model the performance of several known two-tier, predefined mutation panels and three-tier algorithms for cystic fibrosis (CF) screening utilizing the ethnically diverse California population.MethodsThe cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) mutations identified among the 317 CF cases in California screened between 12 August 2008 and 18 December 2012 were used to compare the expected CF detection rates for several two- and three-tier screening approaches, including the current California approach, which consists of a population-specific 40-mutation panel followed by third-tier sequencing when indicated.ResultsThe data show that the strategy of using third-tier sequencing improves CF detection following an initial elevated immunoreactive trypsinogen and detection of only one mutation on a second-tier panel.ConclusionIn a diverse population, the use of a second-tier panel followed by third-tier CFTR gene sequencing provides a better detection rate for CF, compared with the use of a second-tier approach alone, and is an effective way to minimize the referrals of CF carriers for sweat testing. Restricting screening to a second-tier testing to predefined mutation panels, even broad ones, results in some missed CF cases and demonstrates the limited utility of this approach in states that have diverse multiethnic populations.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBase SequenceChromosome MappingCystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance RegulatorFemaleGenetic TestingGenomicsHeterozygoteHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMutationNeonatal ScreeningWhole Genome SequencingCFTR protein, humanCystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator

Identifiers

PMID28471435
OpenAlexW2610594830

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.