Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33073022›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of neonatal screening2020

Processing Newborn Bloodspot Screening Results for CF.

Jürg Barben, Jane Chudleigh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of neonatal screening, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis in Hungary-First-Year Experiences.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Why Do We Screen Newborn Infants for Cystic Fibrosis?International journal of neonatal screening · 2020
    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

2 authors.

Jürg BarbenDivision of Paediatric Pulmonology & CF Centre, Children's Hospital of Eastern Switzerland, 9006 St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Jane ChudleighSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London EC1V 0HB, UK; j.chudleigh@city.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7334-8708

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Every newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) result for cystic fibrosis (CF) consists of two parts: a screening part in the laboratory and a clinical part in a CF centre. When introducing an NBS programme, more attention is usually paid to the laboratory part, especially which algorithm is most suitable for the region or the country. However, the clinical part, how a positive screening result is processed, is often underestimated and can have great consequences for the affected child and their parents. A clear algorithm for the diagnostic part in CF centres is also important and influences the performance of a CF NBS programme. The processing of a positive screening result includes the initial information given to the parents, the invitation to the sweat test, what to do if a sweat test fails, information about the results of the sweat test, the inconclusive diagnosis and the carrier status, which is handled differently from country to country. The time until the definitive diagnosis and adequate information is given, is considered by the parents and the CF team as the most important factor. The communication of a positive NBS result is crucial. It is not a singular event but rather a process that includes ensuring the appropriate clinicians are aware of the result and that families are informed in the most efficient and effective manner to facilitate consistent and timely follow-up.

Indexed as

cystic fibrosisnewborn screeningparental informationpresumptive diagnosissweat test

Identifiers

PMID33073022
PMCPMC7422987

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.