Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42299943›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026

Newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency in the NHS newborn blood spot screening programme: a systematic review.

Marie Westwood, Jonathan Emerson, Nigel Armstrong, Lisa Stirk

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 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

4 authors.

Marie WestwoodKleijnen Systematic Reviews KSR Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6257-0653
Jonathan EmersonKleijnen Systematic Reviews KSR Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4164-9688
Nigel ArmstrongKleijnen Systematic Reviews KSR Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7443-4798
Lisa StirkKleijnen Systematic Reviews KSR Ltd, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7679-4957

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Severe combined immunodeficiency is an inherited condition arising from mutations in at least 19 known genes. Severe combined immunodeficiency can be identified through screening, family history or clinical presentation. Severe combined immunodeficiency is usually asymptomatic at birth and presents, in infancy, as recurrent and frequently severe infections. Without treatment, severe combined immunodeficiency is usually fatal in the first year of life. Objectives: To summarise the available evidence relevant to newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency in the UK NHS newborn blood spot screening programme. Three research questions, concerning the accuracy of screening tests, the efficacy of early treatment and the acceptability of screening, were developed to address this objective. Methods: Eleven bibliographic databases were searched for relevant studies from 2011 to April 2024. Separate inclusion criteria were specified for each research question. Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality followed standard systematic review methods. A narrative synthesis of results is presented, structured by research question. No meta-analyses were conducted. Results: Most positive predictive values, calculated from reports of newborn blood spot screening programme experience, were between 3.6% and 26%. Screening algorithms incorporating repeat sampling in preterm babies appeared to reduce false positives due to prematurity. However, the large number of other conditions that can give rise to a positive screening result mean that the positive predictive value for severe combined immunodeficiency remains consistently poor. Two small studies reported that early diagnosis of severe combined immunodeficiency, via newborn blood spot screening or family history and following the introduction of newborn blood spot screening, respectively, was associated with non-statistically significant improvements in post-transplant survival. A third study analysed data on Limitations: The systematic review component of this evidence summary was limited by a restriction to full publications in the English language. Conclusions: The current published evidence base alone is not adequate to fully support implementation of newborn blood spot screening for severe combined immunodeficiency. With respect to UK National Screening Committee population screening criteria, criterion 4 was partially met and there was insufficient evidence to adequately assess whether criterion 6 was met. The findings of this evidence summary should be considered alongside findings from the recent in-service evaluation of newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency conducted in the NHS in England and the results of cost-effectiveness modelling. Future work: Further work is needed to inform policy on how the identification of non-severe combined immunodeficiency T-cell lymphopenia conditions by screening should be treated. Stakeholder dialogue and patient and public involvement activities may be helpful. In particular, the views of parents who have lived experience of a non-severe combined immunodeficiency (incidental) finding from newborn blood spot screening for severe combined immunodeficiency should be sought. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42024544200. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR168307) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Neonatal ScreeningSevere Combined ImmunodeficiencyHumansInfant, NewbornPredictive Value of TestsState MedicineUnited KingdomBLOOD SPOTNEWBORN SCREENINGSCIDSEVERE COMBINED IMMUNODEFICIENCYTREC

Identifiers

PMID42299943
PMCPMC13284761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.