Observational studyCadernos de saude publica2024
IRT/IRT as a newborn cystic fibrosis screening method: optimal cutoff points for a mixed population.
Observational study in Cadernos de saude publica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) has incorporated newborn screening for cystic fibrosis since 2001. The protocol involves two samples of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT1/IRT2). This study aims to analyze fixed and floating values at the first and second IRT (IRT1/IRT2) cutoff points and assess the accuracy of the IRT/IRT methodology in a population from Northeastern Brazil. Descriptive, individual-level data from the newborn screening reference service data system (2013-2017) were used in this observational population study. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPV) for the protocol were calculated. The best cutoff point was determined using the Youden's index. The previous year's cut-off values for the IRT1 and IRT2 99.4-, 99.5-, 99.6-, and 99.7-percentiles were utilized for the floating cutoff. During the studied period, 840,832 newborns underwent screening for cystic fibrosis, obtaining 49 cystic fibrosis diagnoses: 39 by newborn screening (79.6%) and 10 (20.4%) by clinical suspicion (false negative). The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the protocol totaled 79.6%, 99.9%, and 6.1%, respectively. No proposed cutoff for IRT1 performed better than the current one. IRT2 performed similarly to the current protocol at a cutoff point of 90ng/mL, showing the appropriate sensitivity and specificity while reducing the frequency of false positives. The protocol to screen newborns for cystic fibrosis had low sensitivity, a predictive positive value, and a high number of false positives and negatives. A floating cut point for IRT1 or IRT2 seems to constitute no viable option. However, changing the IRT2 cut point from 70ng/mL to 90ng/mL seems to have advantages and should undergo consideration.
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.