ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2025
Reflections on 50 Years of Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening Experience with Critical Perspectives, Assessment of Current Status, and Predictions for Future Improvements.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Case Report: Pitfalls in CF screening - targeted variant analysis can cause misleading results and therapy recommendations.Frontiers in 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The morbidity/mortality risks of cystic fibrosis (CF) with a delayed diagnosis have made newborn screening (NBS) attractive for the past 50 years. Initial efforts focused on meconium analyses, but these proved unsatisfactory. After dried blood spot specimens became valuable for NBS applied to other genetic disorders and immunoassay methods became routine, the discovery of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) led to numerous CF NBS programs around the world. Excellent laboratorians led the way, but CF clinicians rightly questioned the benefit-risk relationship and unanswered questions about IRT. These issues were resolved by the combination of a positive randomized clinical trial and the discovery of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene (
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.