ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Health economic evaluations of genomic newborn screening: Approaches by studies within the international consortium on newborn sequencing.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Affordability and value-for-money are key factors that will inform decisions about implementation of genomic newborn screening (gNBS) as a population-based program. Given the methodological and data-related challenges to evaluating health and economic outcomes of gNBS, there is a need for discussion and knowledge sharing amongst investigators responsible for conducting such evaluations. The International Consortium on Newborn Sequencing (ICoNS) includes academic and commercial gNBS pilot and implementation programs, and the ICoNS Economics Subcommittee assembles health economists who are involved in the evaluation of these programs. This paper summarizes the reported approaches taken by gNBS researchers to assess the health, psychosocial, and economic outcomes of gNBS and provides recommendations for reporting of gNBS economic evaluations developed by an international working group of health economists. We surveyed 12 ICoNS-affiliated project investigators involved in the design of health economics and outcomes evaluation protocols, the results of which were supplemented through ICoNS Economics Subcommittee discussion. Investigators reported making economic evaluation methodological design choices that reflect both the gNBS study design and adaptation to local policy questions and stakeholder input. Investigators reported plans to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 7, 58%) and/or cost-utility analyses (n = 5, 42%). Recommendations for reporting gNBS economic evaluations include aspects of genetic condition identification, screening and follow-up care pathways, and health and cost outcomes. Going forward, making transparent study design choices and sharing lessons learned could advance understanding of outcomes in a methodologically complex context and inform researchers planning to design similar studies in the future.
Identifiers
42236918What 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.