Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41898893›Full record

ReviewGenes2026

The History of and Advances in Newborn Screening: Where Do We Stand?

Sharon Anderson, Milen Velinov

Abstract readReviewHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sharon AndersonDivision of Advanced Nursing Practice, Rutgers School of Nursing, Newark, NJ 07101, USA.
Milen VelinovDepartment of Pediatrics, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Child Health Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0551-2019

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To comprehend the current state and future of newborn screening (NBS), it is essential to understand its history. Over the past six decades, this well-established and exemplary population-based screening program has been guided by screening principles dating back more than half a century. Advances in laboratory and point-of-care testing, diagnostic methods, and a surge of available treatments and even cures have made it challenging to balance screening criteria that have not kept pace with the current landscape. The availability to screen as well as the demand from parents and stakeholders to screen for more and increasingly complex conditions while limiting the retention of NBS specimens and genetic material has been both exciting and challenging. This paper shares the history of NBS in the United States, followed by the development and integration of genomic sequencing as a complement to current practice. It explores evidence supporting the concomitant use of biomarker- and DNA-sequencing-based approaches for NBS, how disorders are selected for inclusion, and available treatments, and offers recommendations regarding what to consider and how to proceed in this ever-changing NBS landscape.

Indexed as

Genetic Diseases, InbornGenetic TestingNeonatal ScreeningHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansInfant, NewbornUnited Statesgenetic disordersgenome sequencingnewborn screening

Identifiers

PMID41898893
PMCPMC13026489

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.