Evidence mapPaperPMID 42236918Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Health economic evaluations of genomic newborn screening: Approaches by studies within the international consortium on newborn sequencing.

Hadley Stevens Smith, Martin Vu, Tamara Dangouloff, Camille Schubert, Camille Level, Ramesh Lamsal, Kurt D Christensen, Zornitza Stark, Ilias Goranitis, Matthew Aujla and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

19 authors.

Hadley Stevens SmithPrecision Medicine Translational Research (PROMoTeR) Center, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA. hadley.smith@hpchi.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1247-6535
Martin VuHealth Economics and Policy Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Tamara DangouloffNeuromuscular Reference Center, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Liège & University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5435-4774
Camille SchubertAdelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0828-1612
Camille LevelCentre de Génétique, FHU TRANSLAD, CHU Dijon Bourgogne, Dijon, France.
Ramesh LamsalPrecision Medicine Translational Research (PROMoTeR) Center, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Kurt D ChristensenPrecision Medicine Translational Research (PROMoTeR) Center, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4068-776X
Zornitza StarkAustralian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-1371
Ilias GoranitisAustralian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7946-8324
Matthew AujlaFirstSteps, Athens, Greece.
Thomas WestoverMaternal Fetal Medicine and Perinatal Genetics, Capital Health, Trenton, NJ, USA.
Amy PonteGlobal Medical Rare Disorders, Scientific Affairs and Diagnostics, Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3023-357X
Nidhi ShahDartmouth Health Children's, Lebanon, NH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0851-8376
Laurent ServaisNeuromuscular Reference Center, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Liège & University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9270-4061
Miranda BaileyRocket Pharmaceuticals, Cranbury, NJ, USA.
Tara A LavelleCenter for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Scott D GrosseDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1078-6855
Sarah NorrisLeeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4733-6906
James BuchananHealth Economics and Policy Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2528-0638

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42236918

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.