ReviewPediatric reports2026
Integrating the Genomic Revolution into Newborn Screening: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.
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.
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.
- Genomic sequencing and the urgency of early diagnosis in inborn errors of metabolism.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Correction: Tummolo et al. Integrating the Genomic Revolution into Newborn Screening: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.Pediatric reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.