ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Psychosocial Impact of False-Positive Newborn Screening Results: A Scoping Review.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dried blood spot quality in newborn inherited metabolic disease screening in Beijing, 2020-2024: a retrospective analysis of incidence, causes, and improvement strategies.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal screening compared with amniocentesis: A retrospective study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- Extracellular vesicles in assisted reproductive technology: A double-edged sword in fertility enhancement.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- Perceived severity and parental distress after positive expanded newborn screening: parent-clinician concordance and dyadic processes.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Parental Views on the Psychosocial Impact of False-Positive Results Following Newborn Screening for Severe Combined Immunodeficiency in England.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Review
- Experiences of parents who receive a false-positive CK-MM screening for their newborn.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Caregivers' Emotional Responses Triggered by a False-Positive VLCADD in Newborn Screening in Oita Prefecture.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- The clinical and socioeconomic aspects of t-cell receptor excision circle based newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency in Southeast and East Asia.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Hearing Screening for Congenital CytoMegaloVirus-Exploring Parents' Experiences of Completing Targeted Congenital Cytomegalovirus Screening at the Time of Their Infants' Newborn Hearing Screening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychosocial consequences of false-positive results following newborn bloodspot screening have been identified as a potential risk to this highly successful public health initiative. A scoping review was undertaken in October 2023 underpinned by the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Twenty-four papers were included in the review, many of which focused on cystic fibrosis. The results indicated that impact of false-positive results is variable; some studies suggest false-positive results have the potential to result in negative sequelae including increased stress and changes in parental perceptions of their child, while others suggest these impacts are transient and, in some instances, may even lead to positive outcomes. Further evidence is needed to ensure the representation of other conditions included in newborn bloodspot screening and to support strategies to overcome potential negative sequela.
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.