ArticleGenetics in medicine open2024
Genetic counselors' perspectives on genomic screening of apparently healthy newborns in the United States.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Integrating Genomic Sequencing into Newborn Screening: An Interview Study.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Data-driven consideration of genetic disorders for global genomic newborn screening programs.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: There is growing international interest in using genomic sequencing to screen newborns and children for treatable genomic conditions. Although recent research has demonstrated increasing support for using genomic sequencing to screen newborns and children for treatable genomic conditions among various stakeholders, little is known about the perspectives of genetic counselors (GCs) in the United States, who are frequently engaged in the disclosure of positive newborn screening results and coordination of follow-up testing and management. Methods: This study utilized a cross-sectional 3-section survey to explore GCs' perspectives on the benefits, limitations, and ethical and practical considerations of genomic sequencing in newborns as an adjunct screen to standard newborn screening (NBS). Additionally, we evaluated GCs' views on specific genes that could be added to NBS via sequencing. Results: Of 176 GCs who participated in the study, most endorsed the addition of NBSeq for conditions that typically manifest in childhood and have a well-defined treatment or management protocol. Some perspectives, such as attitudes toward health inequity, varied by practice region. Most respondents endorsed 13 of 25 specific genetic conditions for inclusion in NBSeq. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate GCs' support for the expansion of NBS using genomic sequencing in the United States and the need for ongoing investigation of ethical and practical concerns related to its implementation.
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.