ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2023
[Evaluation and optimization of newborn screening by structured long-term follow-up-using the example of inherited metabolic diseases].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parental reactions to and preferences for genomic newborn screening in Germany: findings from a scenario-based survey experiment.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- A population-representative survey on attitudes toward genomic newborn screening in Germany.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Newborn screening (NBS) is a highly successful secondary prevention program with the goal of preventing severe sequelae of congenital, mostly genetic, diseases by identifying them as early as possible, ideally in the pre-symptomatic period. Studies to date have shown the important achievements of NBS programs but also reveal a number of relevant weaknesses. These include the often incompletely understood natural history and phenotypic diversity of rare diseases as well as the inadequate ability to accurately predict individual disease severity at an early stage and thus the uncertainties in case definition, risk stratification, and treatment indication.In light of the rapid developments in high-throughput genetic technologies and the associated opportunities for substantial future expansion of NBS programs, it seems overdue to make structured long-term follow-up and the subsequent evaluation of the long-term health benefits mandatory for individuals with rare diseases identified through NBS. This article explains the importance of long-term follow-up for the evaluation and continuous optimization of the screening. Long-term clinical outcomes of people with inherited metabolic diseases identified by NBS are presented as examples.
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.