ArticleJAMA network open2023
Perspectives of Rare Disease Experts on Newborn Genome Sequencing.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preferences, attitudes and views regarding genetic newborn screening (gNBS) for rare diseases: a systematic review of the literature and synthesis from 2009 to 2022.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' views on expanding newborn screening with or without genomics in France: Results of the SeDeN-p2 study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Global recommendations for the use of diagnostic genomic sequencing in the prenatal setting on behalf of the ESHG and ISPD.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Classical Homocystinuria Incidentally Diagnosed Following a Normal Newborn Screening Result.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Who and how we engage: A systemic mapping of stakeholder perspectives on genomic newborn screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Data-Related and Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Traditional and Genomic Newborn Screening Programs.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
- Expert consensus on the combined screening of genes and biomarkers for neonatal diseases.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of 101 patients with urea cycle disorders in China.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Data-driven consideration of genetic disorders for global genomic newborn screening programs.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Advancing precision care in pregnancy through a treatable fetal findings list.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Population-based, first-tier genomic newborn screening in the maternity ward.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Promises and challenges of genomic newborn screening (NBS) - lessons from public health NBS programs.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- Early Intervention services in the era of genomic medicine: setting a research agenda.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- Family genetic risk communication and reverse cascade testing in the BabySeq project.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Estimating the sensitivity of genomic newborn screening for treatable inherited metabolic disorders.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Delayed diagnosis and clinical course of alpha-mannosidosis: A retrospective study of 25 patients with varying severity.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Feasibility of newborn screening for pyridoxine-dependent epilepsy.Molecular genetics and metabolism · 2025Article
- Newborn Screening by DNA-First: Systematic Evaluation of the Eligibility of Inherited Metabolic Disorders Based on Treatability.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- Feasibility and Acceptability of a Newborn Screening Program Using Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing in One Maternity Hospital in Southern Belgium.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Multi-Omic Approach to Newborn Screening: Opportunities and Challenges.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
22 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Newborn genome sequencing (NBSeq) can detect infants at risk for treatable disorders currently undetected by conventional newborn screening. Despite broad stakeholder support for NBSeq, the perspectives of rare disease experts regarding which diseases should be screened have not been ascertained. Objective: To query rare disease experts about their perspectives on NBSeq and which gene-disease pairs they consider appropriate to evaluate in apparently healthy newborns. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study, designed between November 2, 2021, and February 11, 2022, assessed experts' perspectives on 6 statements related to NBSeq. Experts were also asked to indicate whether they would recommend including each of 649 gene-disease pairs associated with potentially treatable conditions in NBSeq. The survey was administered between February 11 and September 23, 2022, to 386 experts, including all 144 directors of accredited medical and laboratory genetics training programs in the US. Exposures: Expert perspectives on newborn screening using genome sequencing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of experts indicating agreement or disagreement with each survey statement and those who selected inclusion of each gene-disease pair were tabulated. Exploratory analyses of responses by gender and age were conducted using t and χ2 tests. Results: Of 386 experts invited, 238 (61.7%) responded (mean [SD] age, 52.6 [12.8] years [range 27-93 years]; 126 [52.9%] women and 112 [47.1%] men). Among the experts who responded, 161 (87.9%) agreed that NBSeq for monogenic treatable disorders should be made available to all newborns; 107 (58.5%) agreed that NBSeq should include genes associated with treatable disorders, even if those conditions were low penetrance; 68 (37.2%) agreed that actionable adult-onset conditions should be sequenced in newborns to facilitate cascade testing in parents, and 51 (27.9%) agreed that NBSeq should include screening for conditions with no established therapies or management guidelines. The following 25 genes were recommended by 85% or more of the experts: OTC, G6PC, SLC37A4, CYP11B1, ARSB, F8, F9, SLC2A1, CYP17A1, RB1, IDS, GUSB, DMD, GLUD1, CYP11A1, GALNS, CPS1, PLPBP, ALDH7A1, SLC26A3, SLC25A15, SMPD1, GATM, SLC7A7, and NAGS. Including these, 42 gene-disease pairs were endorsed by at least 80% of experts, and 432 genes were endorsed by at least 50% of experts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, rare disease experts broadly supported NBSeq for treatable conditions and demonstrated substantial concordance regarding the inclusion of a specific subset of genes in NBSeq.
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.