ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2019
Initial Evaluation of Prospective and Parallel Assessments of Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening Protocols in Eastern Andalusia: IRT/IRT versus IRT/PAP/IRT.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Philippine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Periodic Health Examination: Screening for Congenital and Developmental Disorders.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Article
- IRT/IRT as a newborn cystic fibrosis screening method: optimal cutoff points for a mixed population.Cadernos de saude publica · 2024Observational
- An Approach to Re-evaluate the Reference Cutoff of the Parameters of Newborn Screening: An Observational Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis in Hungary-First-Year Experiences.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
- Impact of Pancreatitis-Associated Protein on Newborn Screening Outcomes and Detection of CFTR-Related Metabolic Syndrome (CRMS)/Cystic Fibrosis Screen Positive, Inconclusive Diagnosis (CFSPID): A Monocentric Prospective Pilot Experience.International journal of neonatal screening · 2022Article
- [Impact of the inclusion of second-tier tests in the newborn screening program of Catalonia and in other international programs.]Revista espanola de salud publica · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying newborns at risk for cystic fibrosis (CF) by newborn screening (NBS) using dried blood spot (DBS) specimens provides an opportunity for presymptomatic detection. All NBS strategies for CF begin with measuring immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT). Pancreatitis-associated protein (PAP) has been suggested as second-tier testing. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of an IRT/PAP/IRT strategy versus the current IRT/IRT strategy over a two-year pilot study including 68,502 newborns. The design of the study, carried out in a prospective and parallel manner, allowed us to compare four different CF-NBS protocols after performing a post hoc analysis. The best PAP cutoff point and the potential sources of PAP false positive results in our non-CF newborn population were also studied. 14 CF newborns were detected, resulting in an overall CF prevalence of 1/4, 893 newborns. The IRT/IRT algorithm detected all CF cases, but the IRT/PAP/IRT algorithm failed to detect one case of CF. The IRT/PAP/IRT with an IRT-dependent safety net protocol was a good alternative to improve sensitivity to 100%. The IRT × PAP/IRT strategy clearly performed better, with a sensitivity of 100% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 39%. Our calculated optimal cutoffs were 2.31 µg/L for PAP and 167.4 µg
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.