Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37489492›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2023

Development of a Model for Quantitative Assessment of Newborn Screening in Japan Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Keiko Konomura, Eri Hoshino, Kotomi Sakai, Takashi Fukuda, Go Tajima

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Keiko KonomuraCenter for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (C2H), National Institute of Public Health, Wako-shi 351-0197, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9457-5969
Eri HoshinoDivision of Policy Evaluation, Department of Health Policy, Research Institute, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo 157-8535, Japan.
Kotomi SakaiComprehensive Unit for Health Economic Evidence Review and Decision Support (CHEERS), Research Organization of Science and Technology, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto 600-8815, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8700-9029
Takashi FukudaCenter for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (C2H), National Institute of Public Health, Wako-shi 351-0197, Japan.
Go TajimaDivision of Neonatal Screening, Research Institute, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo 157-8535, Japan.
National Center For Child Health and Development · JPNational Institute of Public Health · JPRitsumeikan University · JP

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development JP20gk0110050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether or not conditions should be included in publicly funded newborn screening (NBS) programs should be discussed according to objective and transparent criteria. Certain criteria have been developed for the introduction of NBS programs in the context of individual countries; however, there are no standard selection criteria for NBS programs in Japan. This study aimed to develop a quantitative scoring model to assess newborn screening that incorporates the views of a variety of stakeholders in Japan. The five recommended eligibility criteria for NBS were stratified based on previous studies and expert opinions, using the analytic hierarchy process. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based questionnaire targeting a wide range of people involved in NBS to investigate pairwise comparisons of the evaluation items between February and April of 2022. There were 143 respondents. Most of our respondents (44.1%) were physicians. Fifty-eight respondents (40.6%) had been engaged in NBS-related research or work for more than 10 years. The distribution of allocation points was the highest for 'intervention', 'screening test', 'follow-up setting', 'economic evaluation', and 'disease/condition', in that order. The algorithm in this study will guide decision makers in collecting and evaluating objective data, thus enabling transparent discussions to occur.

Indexed as

inherited disordernewborn screeningpediatricspublic healthrare diseasesselection criteria

Identifiers

PMID37489492
PMCPMC10366826
OpenAlexW4384525293

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.