ArticleBMJ open2024
Patient preferences in genetic newborn screening for rare diseases: study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conditional Acceptance and the Optimism-Knowledge Gap: A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare in Italy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- What Is at Stake in Genetic Newborn Screening for Rare Diseases? An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Parents' and Expectant Parents' Concerns in the Screen4Care Project.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- The impact of rare diseases on the quality of life in paediatric patients: current status.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 12 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRare diseases (RDs) collectively impact over 30 million people in Europe. Most individual conditions have a low prevalence which has resulted in a lack of research and expertise in this field, especially regarding genetic newborn screening (gNBS). There is increasing recognition of the importance of incorporating patients' needs and general public perspectives into the shared decision-making process regarding gNBS. This study is part of the Innovative Medicine Initiative project Screen4Care which aims at shortening the diagnostic journey for RDs by accelerating diagnosis for patients living with RDs through gNBS and the use of digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Our objective will be to assess expecting parent's perspectives, attitudes and preferences regarding gNBS for RDs in Italy and Germany. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed method approach will assess perspectives, attitudes and preferences of (1) expecting parents seeking genetic consultation and (2) 'healthy' expecting parents from the general population in two countries (Germany and Italy). Focus groups and interviews using the nominal group technique and ranking exercises will be performed (qualitative phase). The results will inform the treatment of attributes to be assessed via a survey and a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The total recruitment sample will be 2084 participants (approximatively 1000 participants in each country for the online survey). A combination of thematic qualitative and logit-based quantitative approaches will be used to analyse the results of the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Erlangen University Ethics Committee (22-246_1-B), the Freiburg University Ethics Committee (23-1005 S1-AV) and clinical centres in Italy (University of FerraraCE: 357/2023/Oss/AOUFe and Hospedale Bambino Gesu: No.2997 of 2 November 2023, Prot. No. _902) and approved for data storage and handling at the Uppsala University (2022-05806-01). The dissemination of the results will be ensured via scientific journal publication (open access).
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.