ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Quality and consistency of genetic newborn screening reports in China: insights from a multi-laboratory analysis using simulated samples.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChina currently lacks unified reporting standards for genetic newborn screening (gNBS), resulting in substantial variation in report content, structure, and variant interpretation across laboratories. This study aims to evaluate the quality of gNBS reports nationwide and provide practical evidence to support the development of standardized reporting guidelines.
methodsThrough an external quality assessment (EQA) program organized by the National Center for Clinical Laboratories (NCCL), we collected reports generated by 34 laboratories for three bioinformatically simulated samples. A structured questionnaire, panel comparison, and content evaluation were employed to systematically assess differences in gene panel composition, consistency in variant detection and classification, approaches to distinguishing primary and secondary findings, completeness of key report elements, and the scope of genetic counseling recommendations.
resultsThe number of genes included in screening panels varied substantially across laboratories, with only about one-third demonstrating high inter-laboratory similarity. Most laboratories achieved good consistency in detecting primary variants and classifying their pathogenicity, whereas considerable discrepancies were observed in the reporting of secondary findings, evidence grading, and specific descriptive details. Some reports lacked essential information, including testing purpose, laboratory signature, and submitting institution. Although most laboratories provided genetic counseling recommendations, these suggestions were generally not comprehensive.
conclusionThe gNBS reports in China exhibit a certain degree of consistency in presenting core information, yet further standardization is needed to improve report structure and completeness. This study provides practical support for developing unified reporting standards and highlights areas where observed variability may guide mutual learning and quality improvement across laboratories.
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.