Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28487886›Full record

ArticleCold Spring Harbor molecular case studies2017

New tools and approaches to newborn screening: ready to open Pandora's box?

Can Ficicioglu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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.

Can FiciciogluChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The landscape of newborn screening (NBS) is changing as new tools are developed. We must acknowledge that NBS is a very important and extraordinarily positive initiative especially for rare and serious inherited disorders; however, lessons learned from current NBS should guide the future of NBS as we enter the era of "omics" that will expand NBS for many other genetic disorders. In this article, I will first discuss new tools such as genomics and metabolomics for NBS. I will then turn to assessing how best to take advantage of new technical developments while considering the best interests of patients and the success of newborn screening.

Indexed as

FemaleGenetic TestingGenomicsHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMass ScreeningMetabolomicsNeonatal ScreeningParents

Identifiers

PMID28487886
PMCPMC5411690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.