ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2020
Harmonizing Newborn Screening Laboratory Proficiency Test Results Using the CDC NSQAP Reference Materials.
Article 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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the Throughput and Specificity for Small-Molecule Analysis During First-Tier Mass Spectrometry-Based Newborn Screening.Metabolites · 2026Article
- Development of Dried Blood Spot Proficiency Testing Materials for Newborn Screening of Lysosomal Diseases Using Recombinant Enzymes.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Transitioning from Laboratory-Developed Tests to a Single Commercial Reagent Kit in a National Newborn Screening Program: Impact on Analytical Performance and Harmonization.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Emerging Quantitative Targeted Metabolomics Approaches for Future Inborn Errors of Metabolism Screening.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Neurological Outcomes of Newborn Screening-Identified Isovaleric Acidemia: A Case Series Exploring Initial C5 Acylcarnitine Levels.JIMD reports · 2026Article
- Celebrating 50 Years of Nationwide Newborn Screening in Hungary-Review, Current Situation, and Future Directions.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the Performance of Newborn Screening for Tyrosinemia Type 1 in The Netherlands: Suggestions for Improvements Using Additional Biomarkers in Addition to Succinylacetone.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Neonatal Screening Programs for Tyrosinemia Type 1 Worldwide.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- N-Acetyltyrosine as a Biomarker of Parenteral Nutrition Administration in First-Tier Newborn Screening Assays.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- Concordant inter-laboratory derived concentrations of ceramides in human plasma reference materials via authentic standards.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Continuity of Operations in Newborn Screening: Lessons Learned from Three Incidents.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- 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
- Current State and Innovations in Newborn Screening: Continuing to Do Good and Avoid Harm.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Review
- Comprehensive Evaluation of the NeoBase 2 Non-derivatized MSMS Assay and Exploration of Analytes With Significantly Different Concentrations Between Term and Preterm Neonates.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Harmonization of Newborn Screening Results for Pompe Disease and Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
- dbRUSP: An Interactive Database to Investigate Inborn Metabolic Differences for Improved Genetic Disease Screening.International journal of neonatal screening · 2022Article
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
Newborn screening (NBS) laboratories cannot accurately compare mass spectrometry-derived results and cutoff values due to differences in testing methodologies. The objective of this study was to assess harmonization of laboratory proficiency test (PT) results using quality control (QC) data. Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program (NSQAP) QC and PT data reported from 302 laboratories in 2019 were used to compare results among laboratories. QC materials were provided as dried blood spot cards which included a base pool and the base pool enriched with specific concentrations of metabolites in a linear range. QC data reported by laboratories were regressed on QC data reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and laboratory's regression parameters were used to harmonize their PT result. In general, harmonization tended to reduce overall variation in PT data across laboratories. The metabolites glutarylcarnitine (C5DC), tyrosine, and phenylalanine were displayed to highlight inter- and intra-method variability in NBS results. Several limitations were identified using retrospective data for harmonization, and future studies will address these limitations to further assess feasibility of using NSQAP QC data to harmonize PT data. Harmonizing NBS data using common QC materials appears promising to aid result comparison between laboratories.
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.