Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36582269›Full record

ReviewPediatric investigation2022

Newborn screening for genetic disorders: Current status and prospects for the future.

Si Ding, Lianshu Han

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric investigation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Arguments for and against the whole-genome sequencing of newborns.American journal of translational research · 2023
    Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Si DingDepartment of Pediatric Endocrinology and Genetic Metabolism, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Institute of Pediatric Research Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai China.
Lianshu HanDepartment of Pediatric Endocrinology and Genetic Metabolism, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Institute of Pediatric Research Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4209-5119
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Newborn screening (NBS) is a public health service aimed at identifying infants with severe genetic disorders, thus providing effective treatment early enough to prevent or ameliorate the onset of symptoms. Current NBS uses biochemical analysis of dried blood spots, predominately with time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay and tandem mass spectrometry, which produces some false positives and false negatives. The application of enzymatic activity-based testing technology provides a reliable screening method for some disorders. Genetic testing is now commonly used for secondary or confirmatory testing after a positive result in some NBS programs. Recently, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a robust tool that enables large panels of genes to be scanned together rapidly. Rapid advances in NGS emphasize the potential for genomic sequencing to improve NBS programs. However, some challenges still remain and require solution before this is applied for population screening.

Indexed as

Genetic disordersGenetic testingNewborn screeningNext‐generation sequencingTandem mass spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID36582269
PMCPMC9789938
OpenAlexW4307404357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.