ReviewFrontiers in genetics2022
Population-based screening of newborns: Findings from the newborn screening expansion study (part two).
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Charting the Ethical Frontier in Newborn Screening Research: Insights from the NBSTRN ELSI Researcher Needs Survey.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- Current Status of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Worldwide 2024: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Activities (2020-2023).International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- The "Other E" in ELSI: The Use of Economic Evaluation to Inform the Expansion of Newborn Screening.Archives of pediatrics (Lisle, IL) · 2024Article
- NBSTRN Tools to Advance Newborn Screening Research and Support Newborn Screening Stakeholders.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid advances in genomic technologies to screen, diagnose, and treat newborns will significantly increase the number of conditions in newborn screening (NBS). We previously identified four factors that delay and/or complicate NBS expansion: 1) variability in screening panels persists; 2) the short duration of pilots limits information about interventions and health outcomes; 3) recent recommended uniform screening panel (RUSP) additions are expanding the definition of NBS; and 4) the RUSP nomination and evidence review process has capacity constraints. In this paper, we developed a use case for each factor and suggested how model(s) could be used to evaluate changes and improvements. The literature on models was reviewed from a range of disciplines including system sciences, management, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. The results from our analysis highlighted that there is at least one model which could be applied to each of the four factors that has delayed and/or complicate NBS expansion. In conclusion, our paper supports the use of modeling to address the four challenges in the expansion of NBS.
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.