ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2020
[Results of the neonatal screening on Western Andalusia after a decade of experience.]
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Status of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Worldwide 2024: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Activities (2020-2023).International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- Systematic Literature Review Shows Gaps in Data on Global Prevalence and Birth Prevalence of Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait: Call for Action to Scale Up and Harmonize Data Collection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main justification of this study was to describe our experience in neonatal screening and to define the prevalence of the diseases included in the neonatal screening program in Andalusia, among which are congenital hypothyroidism, expanded screening (aminoacidopathies, mitochondrial beta-oxidation defects and organic acidurias), cystic fibrosis, and screening for sickle cell anemia.
methodsThe study was carried out in the Metabolopathies Unit of the Virgen del Rocío Hospital in Seville with samples of newborns from Western Andalusia (Cádiz, Córdoba, Huelva and Seville) and autonomous city of Ceuta. A total of 435,141 newborns were studied (from the period from April 1st 2009 to December 31st 2019) to rule out congenital hypothyroidism and expanded screening; 378,306 for cystic fibrosis from May 1st 2011 to the same date described above. Finally, sickle cell anemia screening was included, which comprised a total of 55,576 newborns from November 26th, 2018 to the same period as the previous ones. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS software (version 22, SPSS INC., USA).
resultsThe study revealed a prevalence of 1:1565 newborns for congenital hypothyroidism, 1:1532 newborns for extended screening, 1:6.878 newborns for cystic fibrosis, and a 1:11.115 newborns for sickle cell disease.
conclusionsThe neonatal screening program allows a large number of newborns to benefit from the early detection of certain serious congenital diseases. This aim improves the morbidity and mortality of those who suffer from them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33323920PMC11582966W3114576763What 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.