ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2025
Evaluation of the Performance of Newborn Screening for Tyrosinemia Type 1 in The Netherlands: Suggestions for Improvements Using Additional Biomarkers in Addition to Succinylacetone.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transitioning from Laboratory-Developed Tests to a Single Commercial Reagent Kit in a National Newborn Screening Program: Impact on Analytical Performance and Harmonization.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Article
- Overview of European Practices for Management of Tyrosinemia Type 1: Towards European Guidelines.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, Dutch newborns are screened for tyrosinemia type 1 (TT1) using succinylacetone (SA) as the biomarker. Although the sensitivity of the test is high, a high number of false positives is observed. Here, the aim is to evaluate the current Dutch newborn-screening protocol and to assess alternatives, specifically the use of biomarkers that are already being measured, to increase the positive predictive value (PPV). TT1 screening was performed with the Revvity NeoBase assay between 2008 and 2017, and since 2018, the Revvity NeoBase 2 assay has been used. Data from 2018 to 2021 were used for evaluation. To simulate alternative screening protocols, these data were enriched with results of referrals from other periods and a false negative (FN) from 2010. In 2018-2021, 693,821 newborns were screened, resulting in 23 referrals, of whom two were TT1 patients. For this period, to date, no FN have been reported, resulting in a provisional sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.997%, and a PPV and negative predictive value of 9% and 100%, respectively. To improve the PPV, we combined SA, tyrosine (tyr), tyr × SA and tyr/phenylalanine and achieved a PPV of 72% for this dataset without introducing FN in the original dataset. This illustrates that future screening for TT1 may benefit from the addition of these biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.