Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39766837›Full record

ArticleGenes2024

The Newborn Screening Programme Revisited: An Expert Opinion on the Challenges of Rett Syndrome.

Jatinder Singh, Paramala Santosh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Jatinder SinghDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK.
Paramala SantoshDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4830-5893

Funding

Reverse Rett TREAT-RS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic sequencing has the potential to revolutionise newborn screening (NBS) programmes. In 2024, Genomics England began to recruit for the Generation Study (GS), which uses whole genome sequencing (WGS) to detect genetic changes in 500 genes in more than 200 rare conditions. Ultimately, its purpose is to facilitate the earlier identification of rare conditions and thereby improve health-related outcomes for individuals. The adoption of rare conditions into the GS was guided by four criteria: (1) the gene causing the condition can be reliably detected; (2) if undiagnosed, the rare condition would have a serious impact; (3) early or presymptomatic testing would substantially improve outcomes; and (4) interventions for conditions screened are accessible to all. Rett syndrome (RTT, OMIM 312750), a paediatric neurodevelopment disorder, was not included in the list of rare conditions in the GS. In this opinion article, we revisit the GS and discuss RTT from the perspective of these four criteria. We begin with an introduction to the GS and then summarise key points about the four principles, presenting challenges and opportunities for individuals with RTT. We provide insight into how data could be collected during the presymptomatic phase, which could facilitate early diagnosis and improve our understanding of the prodromal stage of RTT. Although many features of RTT present a departure from criteria adopted by the GS, advances in RTT research, combined with advocacy from parent-based organisations, could facilitate its entry into future newborn screening programmes.

Indexed as

Neonatal ScreeningRett SyndromeGenetic TestingHumansInfant, NewbornWhole Genome Sequencingdigital phenotypingGeneration Studynewborn screeningpresymptomatic testingRett syndrome

Identifiers

PMID39766837
PMCPMC11675257

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.