Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39311364›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of neonatal screening2024

Wilson and Jungner Revisited: Are Screening Criteria Fit for the 21st Century?

Elena Schnabel-Besson, Ulrike Mütze, Nicola Dikow, Friederike Hörster, Marina A Morath, Karla Alex, Heiko Brennenstuhl, Sascha Settegast, Jürgen G Okun, Christian P Schaaf and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Current Status of Newborn Screening in Southeastern and Central Europe.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Integrated Newborn Screening in Nigeria: The Way Forward, A Workshop Report.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Elena Schnabel-BessonDivision of Pediatric Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-4342-1805
Ulrike MützeDivision of Pediatric Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4251-7257
Nicola DikowInstitute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4631-9829
Friederike HörsterDivision of Pediatric Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Marina A MorathDivision of Pediatric Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Karla AlexSection Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7065-9201
Heiko BrennenstuhlInstitute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6909-0003
Sascha SettegastSection Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6530-2809
Jürgen G OkunDivision of Pediatric Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Christian P SchaafInstitute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2148-7490
Eva C WinklerSection Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan KölkerDivision of Pediatric Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5188-9477

Funding

Federal Ministry of Education and Research 01GP2201A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Driven by technological innovations, newborn screening (NBS) panels have been expanded and the development of genomic NBS pilot programs is rapidly progressing. Decisions on disease selection for NBS are still based on the Wilson and Jungner (WJ) criteria published in 1968. Despite this uniform reference, interpretation of the WJ criteria and actual disease selection for NBS programs are highly variable. A systematic literature search [PubMED search "Wilson" AND "Jungner"; last search 16.07.22] was performed to evaluate the applicability of the WJ criteria for current and future NBS programs and the need for adaptation. By at least two reviewers, 105 publications (systematic literature search, N = 77; manual search, N = 28) were screened for relevant content and, finally, 38 publications were evaluated. Limited by the study design of qualitative text analysis, no statistical evaluation was performed, but a structured collection of reported aspects of criticism and proposed improvements was instead collated. This revealed a set of general limitations of the WJ criteria, such as imprecise terminology, lack of measurability and objectivity, missing pediatric focus, and absent guidance on program management. Furthermore, it unraveled specific aspects of criticism on clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, and economical aspects. A major obstacle was found to be the incompletely understood natural history and phenotypic diversity of rare diseases prior to NBS implementation, resulting in uncertainty about case definition, risk stratification, and indications for treatment. This gap could be closed through the systematic collection and evaluation of real-world evidence on the quality, safety, and (cost-)effectiveness of NBS, as well as the long-term benefits experienced by screened individuals. An integrated NBS public health program that is designed to continuously learn would fulfil these requirements, and a multi-dimensional framework for future NBS programs integrating medical, ethical, legal, and societal perspectives is overdue.

Indexed as

genomic newborn screeningneonatal screeningnewborn screeningnewborn sequencingphenotypic diversitypublic health programscreening criteria

Identifiers

PMID39311364
PMCPMC11417796

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.