ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2026
A Survey of Current Australasian Practices in the Use of Residual Bloodspots for the Addition of a New Disorder to the Screening Panel.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Newborn screening (NBS) bloodspots are primarily used to test for a defined panel of conditions, yet screening expansion has necessitated the implementation of new tests. Integral to test implementation across all clinical laboratories is the need to evaluate the method with clinical samples, and a common secondary use of residual bloodspots, which are samples that remain following conventional screening, is validating new testing methods by establishing "normal" analyte concentrations and setting action decision limits for NBS protocols prior to implementation. Analysis of de-identified residual bloodspots may potentially reveal an infant with a treatable condition, and re-identification and clinical notification of the infant may then be prudent. However, consent to test residual samples for conditions under implementation may not have been obtained. This ethical dilemma risks the inclusion of residual bloodspots in test development being declined by over-arching NBS authorities. Consequently, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) NBS Committee issued a survey to the Australasian NBS laboratories regarding the current practices of the use of residual bloodspots for new test implementation. The questionnaire revealed a consistent requirement for residual NBS bloodspot analysis to determine reference ranges and screening cutoffs for biochemical variants. If using de-identified residual samples as a component of test validation, re-identification of infants with out-of-range results for clinical referral was considered ethically justified for potentially treatable conditions. The survey results will be used to develop a consensus approach in the region that is both ethically and scientifically valid.
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.