ReviewInternational journal of neonatal screening2020
It All Depends What You Count-The Importance of Definitions in Evaluation of CF Screening Performance.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Status of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Worldwide 2024: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Activities (2020-2023).International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- Is Our Newborn Screening Working Well? A Literature Review of Quality Requirements for Newborn Blood Spot Screening (NBS) Infrastructure and Procedures.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Review
- Why Do We Screen Newborn Infants for Cystic Fibrosis?International journal of neonatal screening · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening metrics are essential to both quality assessment and improvement, but are highly dependent on the way positive tests and cases are counted. In cystic fibrosis (CF) screening, key factors include how mild cases of late-presenting CF and CF screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID) are counted, whether those at prior increased risk of CF are excluded from the screened population, and which aspects of the screening pathway are considered. This paper draws on the New Zealand experience of almost forty years of newborn screening for CF. We demonstrate how different definitions impact the calculation of screening sensitivity. We suggest that, to enable meaningful comparison, CF screening reports should clarify what steps in the screening pathway are included in the assessment, as well as the algorithm used and screening target.
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.