ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2022
Assessing the Content Quality of Online Parental Resources about Newborn Metabolic Disease Screening: A Content Analysis.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2022. 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.
- "Using dried blood spots beyond newborn screening - is Hong Kong ready?": navigating the intersection of innovation readiness, privacy concerns, and Chinese parenting culture.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Current Status of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Worldwide 2024: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Activities (2020-2023).International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parents increasingly utilise the internet to obtain information on health practices, but the quality of online information about screening for inherited metabolic diseases (IMD) needs to be improved. A content analysis examined how IMD blood and urine tests were described online in local healthcare sectors between May and June 2021. Among the nine resources, four were blood test providers and five were urine test providers. All mentioned the test benefits and procedures. Other information, such as false-positive/negative or risk of pain, was infrequently mentioned. The descriptions of urine tests are advertised as outperforming blood tests and can be purchased from commercial laboratory sites without medical guidance. Two urine test providers claimed no false results were reported. A few commercial advertisements highlighted the simplicity of the urine test and potentially overstated the invasiveness of the blood test. We found that some advertisements described IMD as "silent killers" and emphasised the advantage of getting "reassurance" in controlling the child's developmental health and well-being. To better protect the parents, or broadly, the public interest, regulatory and oversight measures on the urine tests should be implemented to promote the proper use of genetic tests. Without timely regulation and oversight, the incorrect descriptions might create a public misconception about utilising these commercial laboratory tests to inform health decisions.
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.