ArticlePediatric pulmonology2025
Facilitators and Barriers to Increasing Equity in Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening Algorithms.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cystic Fibrosis Year in Review 2024.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Review
- Refining CFTR-Related Metabolic Syndrome (CRMS)/Cystic Fibrosis Screen Positive, Inconclusive Diagnosis (CFSPID) Diagnosis: Impact of CFTR2 Variant Classifications.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Review
- Stories, Systems, and Survival: Photovoice Insights on Structural Racism and Cystic Fibrosis Care.Health equityArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundNewborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) was universally implemented in the United States in 2010 to improve disease outcomes. Despite universal screening, disparities in outcomes currently exist between people with CF (PwCF) with Black/African, Asian, Indigenous, and Latino/Hispanic ancestry in comparison to PwCF of European ancestry. This is in part because CFTR panels used for newborn screening are often based on variants common in European ancestries leading to higher rates of false negatives for PwCF from minoritized racial and ethnic groups.
methodsThis study investigated how states evaluate and update their CFNBS algorithms through semi-structured interviews with professionals from four states with ethnically diverse populations and one national consultant. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through inductive thematic analysis.
resultsFive themes were identified encompassing facilitators, barriers, and motivations for evaluating and updating CF NBS algorithms. Facilitators of effective evaluation and updating of algorithms included effective communication with CF clinical centers and extensive support for CF as compared to other conditions. Although participants stated that their respective NBS programs were aware of the disparate impact of their CF panels on PwCF from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, motivations to decrease this disparity were hampered by a range of funding and logistical barriers, such as limited information about false negative cases and difficulties incorporating next generation sequencing technology.
conclusionsThis study shed light on the experiences of states considering alterations to their CFNBS panels, revealing several key barriers and facilitators to implementing equitable CFNBS algorithms.
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.