ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2026
Transitioning from Laboratory-Developed Tests to a Single Commercial Reagent Kit in a National Newborn Screening Program: Impact on Analytical Performance and Harmonization.
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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Newborn screening in England is a national program with laboratories adhering to common screening algorithms. Until recently, screening for inherited metabolic disorders was provided by ten laboratories using laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and three using commercial assays: harmonization of results proved challenging. Introduction of hereditary tyrosinemia type 1 screening meant LDTs required modification to include the measurement of succinylacetone, and subsequent re-validation. This provided an opportunity to implement a single commercial reagent kit in all laboratories. It was anticipated that this would improve analytical performance and harmonization. This study aimed to determine whether these goals were achieved. Verification across the 13 laboratories revealed that the commercial kit reduced inter-laboratory variation for all analytes demonstrating improved harmonization. However, this was achieved by applying instrument-specific correction factors to all analytes, the magnitude of which were significant, indicating a lack of standardization. Performance of succinylacetone was limited by instrument-dependent background interference from the methionine stable isotope label, underscoring the need to establish evidence-based screening cut-off values (COV) rather than adopting published thresholds. This study emphasizes the need for traceable reference materials to improve laboratory quality and the value of screening outcome data.
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.