ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2024
Counting Conditions on Newborn Bloodspot Screening Panels in Australia and New Zealand.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Survey of Current Australasian Practices in the Use of Residual Bloodspots for the Addition of a New Disorder to the Screening Panel.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- "Jumping too far ahead": Australian healthcare professional, scientist, and policy maker perspectives on using genomics in newborn screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- An Explorative Qualitative Study of the Role of a Genetic Counsellor to Parents Receiving a Diagnosis After a Positive Newborn Bloodspot Screening.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Early-Onset Inherited Metabolic Diseases: When Clinical Symptoms Precede Newborn Screening-Insights from Emilia-Romagna (Italy).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A greater number of screened conditions is often considered to equate to better screening, whereas it may be due to conditions being counted differently. This manuscript describes a harmonised Australasian approach to listing target conditions found on bloodspot screening panels. Operational definitions for target disorders and incidental findings were developed and applied to disorder lists. A gap analysis was performed between five, state-based Australian newborn screening programme disorder lists and the single national New Zealand and state-level Californian versions. Screening panels were found to be broadly similar. Gap analysis with Californian data reflected differences in jurisdictional approval (for example, haemoglobinopathies and lysosomal disorders not being recommended in Australasia). Differences amongst Australasian panels reflected varied the timeframes recommended in order to implement newly approved disorders, as well as decisions to remove previously screened disorders. A harmonised approach to disorder counting is essential to performing valid comparisons of newborn bloodspot screening panels.
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.