Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39051405›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of neonatal screening2024

Systematic Review of Newborn Screening Programmes for Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Katy Cooper, Gamze Nalbant, Anthea Sutton, Sue Harnan, Praveen Thokala, Jim Chilcott, Alisdair McNeill, Alice Bessey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of neonatal screening, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Katy CooperSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7702-8103
Gamze NalbantSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
Anthea SuttonSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2449-2516
Sue HarnanSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
Praveen ThokalaSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
Jim ChilcottSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1231-7817
Alisdair McNeillSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
Alice BesseySchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7677-0309

Funding

CSRD VA 1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a genetic neuromuscular disorder causing the degeneration of motor neurons in the spinal cord. Recent studies suggest greater effectiveness of treatment in the presymptomatic stage. This systematic review synthesises findings from 37 studies (and 3 overviews) of newborn screening for SMA published up to November 2023 across 17 countries to understand the methodologies used; test accuracy performance; and timing, logistics and feasibility of screening. All studies screened for the homozygous deletion of

Indexed as

laboratory methodsneonatal screeningnewborn screeningscreening programSMA birth prevalenceSMN1 and SMN2 copy numbersspinal muscular atrophysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39051405
PMCPMC11270196

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.