Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29442381›Full record

ReviewBioethics2018

Fostering caring relationships: Suggestions to rethink liberal perspectives on the ethics of newborn screening.

Simone van der Burg, Anke Oerlemans

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07081048 (THE EFFECT OF BUZZY® AND SHOTBLOKER® APPLICATION ON THE PAIN AND COMFORT LEVEL OF NEWBORNS DURING HEEL PRICK BLOOD SAMPLING IN NEWBORNS), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

NCT07081048 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

The effect of buzzy® and shotbloker® application on the pain and comfort level of newborns during heel prick blood sampling in newborns

TypeinterventionalSponsorTarsus UniversityRan2025 to 2025Enrolled159ConditionsNewbornArmsBuzzy®.Group, ShotBlocker Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simone van der BurgORCID 0000-0002-6733-6305
Anke Oerlemans
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Newborn screening (NBS) involves the collection of blood from the heel of a newborn baby and testing it for a list of rare and inheritable disorders. New biochemical screening technologies led to expansions of NBS programs in the first decade of the 21st century. It is expected that they will in time be replaced by genetic sequencing technologies. These developments have raised a lot of ethical debate. We reviewed the ethical literature on NBS, analyzed the issues and values that emerged, and paid particular interest to the type of impacts authors think NBS should have on the lives of children and their families. Our review shows that most authors keep their ethical reflection confined to policy decisions, about for instance (a) the purpose of the program, and (b) its voluntary or mandatory nature. While some authors show appreciation of how NBS information empowers parents to care for their (diseased) children, most authors consider these aspects to be 'private' and leave their evaluation up to parents themselves. While this division of moral labor fits with the liberal conviction to leave individuals free to decide how they want to live their private lives, it also silences the ethical debate about these issues. Given the present and future capacity of NBS to offer an abundance of health-related information, we argue that there is good reason to develop a more substantive perspective to whether and how NBS can contribute to parents' good care for children.

Indexed as

Access to InformationAttitudeBiomedical TechnologyCaregiversParentsPersonal AutonomyDecision MakingHumansInfant, NewbornMoralsNeonatal ScreeningPoliticscareethicsliberalismnewborn screeningtechnology

Identifiers

PMID29442381
PMCPMC5838405
OpenAlexW2786925365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.