Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36975853›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of neonatal screening2023

Current State and Innovations in Newborn Screening: Continuing to Do Good and Avoid Harm.

Giancarlo la Marca, Rachel S Carling, Stuart J Moat, Raquel Yahyaoui, Enzo Ranieri, James R Bonham, Peter C J I Schielen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of neonatal screening, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Giancarlo la MarcaNewborn Screening, Clinical Chemistry and Pharmacology Lab, IRCCS Meyer Children's University Hospital, 50139 Florence, Italy.
Rachel S CarlingBiochemical Sciences, Viapath, Guys & St Thomas' NHSFT, London SE1 7EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1988-3088
Stuart J MoatDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Immunology & Toxicology, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3592-2254
Raquel YahyaouiLaboratory of Metabolic Disorders and Newborn Screening Center of Eastern Andalusia, Málaga Regional University Hospital, Institute of Biomedical Research in Malaga (IBIMA-Plataforma BIONAND), Avenida Arroyo de los Angeles s/n, 29011 Malaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6789-1563
Enzo RanieriBiochemical Genetics, Genetics and Molecular Pathology, SA Pathology, Women's & Children's Hospital, Adelaide 5043, Australia.
James R BonhamSheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TH, UK.
Peter C J I SchielenInternational Society for Neonatal Screening, Reigerskamp 273, 3607 HP Stichtse Vecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5630-7322
Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga · ESKing's College London · GBMeyer Children's Hospital · ITSheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBSouth Australia Pathology · AUUniversity Hospital of Wales · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1963, Robert Guthrie's pioneering work developing a bacterial inhibition assay to measure phenylalanine in dried blood spots, provided the means for whole-population screening to detect phenylketonuria in the USA. In the following decades, NBS became firmly established as a part of public health in developed countries. Technological advances allowed for the addition of new disorders into routine programmes and thereby resulted in a paradigm shift. Today, technological advances in immunological methods, tandem mass spectrometry, PCR techniques, DNA sequencing for mutational variant analysis, ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UPLC), iso-electric focusing, and digital microfluidics are employed in the NBS laboratory to detect more than 60 disorders. In this review, we will provide the current state of methodological advances that have been introduced into NBS. Particularly, 'second-tier' methods have significantly improved both the specificity and sensitivity of testing. We will also present how proteomic and metabolomic techniques can potentially improve screening strategies to reduce the number of false-positive results and improve the prediction of pathogenicity. Additionally, we discuss the application of complex, multiparameter statistical procedures that use large datasets and statistical algorithms to improve the predictive outcomes of tests. Future developments, utilizing genomic techniques, are also likely to play an increasingly important role, possibly combined with artificial intelligence (AI)-driven software. We will consider the balance required to harness the potential of these new advances whilst maintaining the benefits and reducing the risks for harm associated with all screening.

Indexed as

2nd-tier testingbiochemical analysiscystic fibrosis screeningmetabolomicsneonatal screeningnext-generation sequencingNGS in NBSproteomicsquality controlSCID screening

Identifiers

PMID36975853
PMCPMC10057559
OpenAlexW4327714538

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.