Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38535126›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2024

Current Methods of Newborn Screening Follow-Up for Sickle Cell Disease Are Highly Variable and without Quality Assurance: Results from the ENHANCE Study.

Najibah Galadanci, Shannon Phillips, Alyssa Schlenz, Nataliya Ivankova, Julie Kanter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Novel Newborn Screening Program for Sickle Cell Disease in Nigeria.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Najibah GaladanciDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Heersink School of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6853-5023
Shannon PhillipsDepartment of Pediatrics, College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5697-9156
Alyssa SchlenzDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1106-5016
Nataliya IvankovaSchool of Health Professionals, Health Services Administration, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA.
Julie KanterDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Heersink School of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7002-8891
University of Alabama at Birmingham · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

CDC HHS ADVANCING ALSTATE (Alabama Lifespan Tracking Access Towards Equality) 1NU58DD000018-01-00 (CDC)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Newborn screening (NBS) for sickle cell disease (SCD) has significantly improved childhood survival but there are still gaps resulting in delayed care for affected infants. As a state-run program, there are no national quality assurance programs to ensure each state achieves consistent, reliable outcomes. We performed this qualitative study of NBS follow-up practices to better evaluate and understand the multi-level, state-specific processes of how each state's public health department delivers the NBS results to families, how/if they ensure affected infants are seen quickly by sickle cell specialists, and to determine the close-out processes used in each state. This project used semi-structured interviews conducted with 29 participants across eight states to explore these NBS follow-up processes in each state. Participants included SCD providers, NBS coordinators, or personnel associated with state health departments and community-based SCD organizations (CBO). Our results show significant state-dependent variations in the NBS processes of information delivery and patient management. Specifically, programs differed in how they communicated results to affected families and which other organizations were informed of the diagnosis. There was also state-based (and intrastate) variation in who should assume responsibility for ensuring that infants receive confirmatory testing and are promptly started on penicillin prophylaxis. Case closure was also highly variable and poorly validated. Our results also yielded identifiable challenges and facilitators to NBS which were highly variable by state but potentially addressable in the future. This information suggests opportunities for systematic improvement in NBS follow-up processes.

Indexed as

follow upnewborn screeningqualitative interviewssickle cell disease

Identifiers

PMID38535126
PMCPMC10971183
OpenAlexW4392584163

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.