Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42443458›Full record

ReviewPediatric research2026

Perspectives on genomic newborn screening studies: design, implementation, and outcomes.

Mehmet Bugrahan Duz, Wendy K Chung

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric research, 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.

Mehmet Bugrahan DuzDepartment of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Wendy K ChungDepartment of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Wendy.Chung@childrens.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith decreasing sequencing costs and increasingly accurate and scalable methods to interpret genetic variation, genomic newborn screening (gNBS) is being assessed for feasibility, acceptability, and impact worldwide. The field is evolving to determine the genes and variants to report, how to communicate with parents and pediatricians, and confirm results, and how to medically manage children with confirmed diagnoses. CONTENT: This review summarizes global gNBS studies, including recruitment methods, consent models, sample types, participant characteristics, sequencing methods, gene selection criteria, test performance, variant interpretation, automated reporting, turnaround time, methods to return results, confirmatory diagnostic testing, and comparisons with standard NBS (stdNBS) results. Early experience supports the feasibility and positive clinical impact of gNBS. Variability in study design, gene selection, and reporting limits direct comparability across studies but increasing and diverse experience will optimize parameters prior to broad implementation. IMPACT: Genomic newborn screening is feasible and expands the screening of treatable genetic conditions beyond standard newborn screening, and improves the diagnostic accuracy of standard newborn screening. Comparison of genomic newborn screening studies around the world, highlighting key differences in study design, technical approaches, clinical implementation, and current challenges. Key evidence supporting the implementation of genomic newborn screening is summarized to guide future policy and clinical practice.

Identifiers

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.