Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41718426›Full record

ReviewPediatric reports2026

Integrating the Genomic Revolution into Newborn Screening: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.

Albina Tummolo, Emanuela Ponzi, Simonetta Simonetti, Mattia Gentile

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Albina TummoloDepartment of Metabolic Diseases and Clinical Genetics, Giovanni XXIII Children Hospital, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Consorziale, 70126 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8823-8061
Emanuela PonziDepartment of Medical Genetics, Di Venere Hospital, 70012 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1804-0636
Simonetta SimonettiDepartment of Clinical Pathology and Neonatal Screening, Children's Hospital "Giovanni XXIII", Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Consorziale, 70126 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0009-0006-9675-7965
Mattia GentileDepartment of Medical Genetics, Di Venere Hospital, 70012 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5299-6036

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the development of new diagnostic technologies, such as tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) and next-generation sequencing (NGS), has caused a veritable revolution in the diagnosis of genetic diseases, reducing time, cost, and invasiveness associated with prior diagnostic techniques. While MS/MS laid the foundation for the development of numerous, usually institutionally based, neonatal screening programs, NGS has gained traction in newborn screening (NBS), primarily through pilot projects and private funding across different countries. As a result, the traditional Wilson and Jungner criteria have been supplemented by additional criteria, including considerations of equity and access, in response to emerging technologies. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of the global landscape of metabolic screening panels, highlight the major ongoing genomic screening projects, and outline the current models for integrating these two screening systems. Substantial differences exist across countries in the numbers and types of diseases included in national NBS programmes. In this context, Italy represents a prominent case, as its neonatal screening framework has seen significant expansion and development in recent years, reaching a particularly comprehensive metabolic screening panel. Nonetheless, a number of initiatives to incorporate genomic technologies into the NBS pathway are currently underway, primarily involving high-income countries. Nonetheless, unlike metabolomic-based NBS programs, no country has a government-mandated NGS program as first-tier testing for newborns. New evidence is emerging from ongoing models of integration of multi-omics approaches into NBS, including the use of AI and machine learning. Identifying the most appropriate system for this integration to reduce the false-positive and false-negative rates associated with both screening types, ensure more equitable access to screening, and facilitate faster access to treatment may represent a useful and foresightful way to conceptualize NBS in the future. This transitional phase should promote rigorous improvements before full-scale adoption.

Indexed as

genomicsmetabolic disordersmultiomicsnewborn screeningnext-generation sequencingtandem mass spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID41718426
PMCPMC12921972

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.