ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
A multi-dimensional framework for establishing and managing a genomic newborn screening program.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Newborn screening (NBS) is an effective measure of secondary prevention. The application of genomic sequencing in population-based screening would enable further expansions of the NBS disease panel and a genomic NBS (gNBS). The selection of NBS target diseases is still based on the Wilson and Jungner screening principles from 1968, which are considered incomplete, particularly for an extension towards gNBS. The present work aims to establish a multi-dimensional framework for future gNBS programs. An interdisciplinary expert panel comprising researchers from pediatric and adolescent medicine, human genetics, ethics, medical psychology, law, and patient representatives used a nominal group technique-like multi-stage consensus process to define criteria for gNBS, considering ethical, legal, and social implications, medical aspects, and patient perspectives. Overall, 18 criteria were developed, clustered into four subcategories: I. Clinical criteria (characteristics of the target disease); II. Diagnostic criteria (requirements of the test); III. Therapeutic-interventional criteria (prerequisites of the intervention); IV. Program management criteria (requirements of the program). Subcategories I-III define selection criteria for target diseases, subcategory IV defines criteria for how to establish and manage the program. In conclusion, this multi-dimensional framework serves as a well-balanced basis for developing thoroughly revised and internationally accepted consensus screening criteria.
Identifiers
41764288What 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.