Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37386126›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2023

Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases.

Zornitza Stark, Richard H Scott

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
59.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

135 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 191 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Progress and Prospects of Newborn Screening in China.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026
    Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zornitza StarkAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. zornitza.stark@vcgs.org.au.ORCID 0000-0001-8640-1371
Richard H ScottGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9113-2978
Great Ormond Street Hospital · GBVictorian Clinical Genetics Services · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rare diseases are a leading cause of infant mortality and lifelong disability. To improve outcomes, timely diagnosis and effective treatments are needed. Genomic sequencing has transformed the traditional diagnostic process, providing rapid, accurate and cost-effective genetic diagnoses to many. Incorporating genomic sequencing into newborn screening programmes at the population scale holds the promise of substantially expanding the early detection of treatable rare diseases, with stored genomic data potentially benefitting health over a lifetime and supporting further research. As several large-scale newborn genomic screening projects launch internationally, we review the challenges and opportunities presented, particularly the need to generate evidence of benefit and to address the ethical, legal and psychosocial issues that genomic newborn screening raises.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingGenomicsNeonatal ScreeningRare DiseasesHumansInfant, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID37386126
OpenAlexW4382631903

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.