Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34842609›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of neonatal screening2021

Select Ethical Aspects of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests for Newborn Screening and Diagnostic Evaluation of Critically Ill Newborns.

Kuntal Sen, Jennifer Harmon, Andrea L Gropman

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of neonatal screening, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Newborn Screening by Genomic Sequencing: Opportunities and Challenges.International journal of neonatal screening · 2022
    Article
  4. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kuntal SenDivision of Neurogenetics and Developmental Pediatrics, Center for Neuroscience and Behavioral Medicine, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC 20010, USA.
Jennifer HarmonRare Disease Institute, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC 20010, USA.
Andrea L GropmanDivision of Neurogenetics and Developmental Pediatrics, Center for Neuroscience and Behavioral Medicine, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC 20010, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2106-6776
Children's National · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, we analyze medical and select ethical aspects of the increasing use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) based tests in newborn medicine. In the last five years, there have been several studies exploring the role of rapid exome sequencing (ES) and genome sequencing (GS) in critically ill newborns. While the advantages include a high diagnostic yield with potential changes in interventions, there have been ethical dilemmas surrounding consent, information about adult-onset diseases and resolution of variants of uncertain significance. Another active area of research includes a cohort of studies funded under Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health pertaining to the use of ES and GS in newborn screening (NBS). While these techniques may allow for screening for several genetic disorders that do not have a detectable biochemical marker, the high costs and long turnaround times of these tests are barriers in their utilization as public health screening tests. Discordant results between conventional NBS and ES-based NBS, as well as challenges with consent, are other potential pitfalls of this approach. Please see the Bush, Al-Hertani and Bodamer article in this Special Issue for the broader scope and further discussion.

Indexed as

critically ill newbornsethicsgenomic sequencingnewborn screeningpolicyrapid whole exome sequencingrapid whole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID34842609
PMCPMC8628939
OpenAlexW3213271997

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.