ArticleEJIFCC2025
Biological Reference Values for Newborn Screening Parameters in Accordance to Gestational Age and Birth Weight- A Prospective Study.
Article in EJIFCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Disease specific biomarkers are ideal tool to detect the presence of the disorder. Timely detection of disorders can improve the health outcome. The metabolic arrangements in pre-term (PT) and low-birth weight (LBW) newborns differ from those term-born and have normal-birth weight (NBW). Hence, it is crucial to compare the values across study groups and establish a dedicated reference values for each group considering the gestational-age and birth weight. Methods: The prospective study was conducted on the cohort of 2860 newborns who underwent newborn screening (NBS) in dried-bloodspot samples within five days of birth. The study groups included were TERMNBW, TERMLBW, PTNBW and PTLBW. Results: The central tendency measures and the comparison of the NBS parameters across the study groups are presented. Males recorded a higher n17-OHP (p<0.001) median(range) compared to female newborns whereas nIRT (p=0.008) and nMSUD (p<0.001) were higher in female newborns. nTSH values was higher in TERMNBW than the PTLBW group (p=0.03). n17-OHP levels in TERMNBW and TERMLBW groups were lower than PTNBW and PTLBW (<0.001) newborns. nBIOT range of 378.8U and nG6PD range of 17.1U/gHb was highest in TERMNBW. The reference value observed for nTSH, n17-OHP and nIRT were respectively, 9.2mIU/L, 48.6nmol/L, 95.0μg/dL in TERMNBW and 16.9mIU/L, 70.2nmol/L, 76μg/dL in PTLBW. nG6PD reference level were respectively 2.0 and 1.6u/gHb in TERMNBW and PTLBW groups. The nBIOT levels were 52.7U and 48.0U respectively. Reference values were nearly similar for nPKU, nGAL and nMSUD. Conclusion: The study has provided a detailed comparison and reference levels observed in various study groups and sub-groups considering the gestational-age and birth weight of the newborns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41459175PMC12743333What 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.