ArticleJournal of medical ethics2025
Should newborn genetic testing for autism be introduced?
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This manuscript provides a review of the potential role of newborn genetic testing for autism, and whether the state has an inherent responsibility to facilitate and subsidise this. This is situated within the broader construct of benefits and limitations of genetic testing currently. Potential benefits of such presymptomatic genetic testing include facilitating earlier diagnosis and access to appropriate intervention which can improve the treatment outcome for the child and indirectly benefit caregivers and society by reducing the care needs of the child and adult in future. However, there are several limitations to newborn genetic testing including the variable penetrance of 'autism-risk' genes, marked phenotypic heterogeneity of autism, real-world limitations in access to treatment, potential psychological harm to caregivers and financial considerations. We hence argue for facilitation of diagnostic genetic testing instead, especially for parents who seek to have greater understanding of recurrence likelihoods, related to reproductive decision-making. Facilitation of such testing can be in the form of both financial subsidies and infrastructural elements including availability of testing facilities and trained healthcare personnel for individualised pregenetic and postgenetic test counselling.
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.