Cited by 142Metabolism and Genetic DisordersGenomics and Rare DiseasesNeonatal Health and Biochemistry

Decision-making process for conditions nominated to the recommended uniform screening panel: statement of the US department of health and human services secretary's advisory committee on heritable disorders in newborns and children

Open access
Kemper, Alex R., Green, Nancy S., Calonge, Ned, Lam, Wendy K.K., Comeau, Anne M., Goldenberg, Aaron J., Ojodu, Jelili, Prosser, Lisa A. +2 more·2014·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

Purpose The US Secretary of Health and Human Services provides guidance to state newborn screening programs about which conditions should be included in screening (i.e., the "Recommended Uniform Screening Panel"). This guidance is informed by evidence-based recommendations from the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. This report describes the Advisory Committee's revised decision-making process for considering conditions nominated to the panel.Methods An expert panel meeting was held in April 2012 to revise the decision matrix, which helps to guide the recommendation process. In January 2013, the Advisory Committee voted to adopt the revised decision matrix.Results The revised decision matrix clarifies the approach to rating magnitude and certainty of the net benefit of screening to the population of screened newborns for nominated conditions, and now includes the consideration of the capability of state newborn screening programs for population-wide implementation by evaluating the feasibility and readiness of states to adopt screening for nominated conditions.Conclusion The revised decision matrix will bring increased quality, transparency, and consistency to the process of modifying the recommended uniform screening panel and will now allow formal evaluation of the challenges that state newborn screening programs face in adopting screening for new conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/gim.2013.98

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the United States, nomination of a condition to the Recommended Uniform Newborn Screening Panel requires a high certainty that screening would lead to significant net benefit, high-to-moderate feasibility, and ability to implement within 3 years.

    “In the United States, nomination of a condition to the Recommended Uniform Newborn Screening Panel requires a high certainty that screening for the targeted condition would lead to a significant net benefit, that screening has high-to-moderate feasibility and that most state screening programs would be able to implement screening within 3 years.95”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 7 · Cited by 142

Authors
Kemper, A. R., Green, N. S., Calonge, N., Lam, W. K. K., Comeau, A. M., Goldenberg, A. J., Ojodu, J., Prosser, L. A., Tanksley, S., & Bocchini Jr, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Colorado Trust (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Association of Public Health Laboratories (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Texas Department of State Health Services (US)
Corresponding author
Kemper, Alex R.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-02
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
183-187
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068962868
Cited by
142
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship@UMassChan (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (U32-MC00148)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Metabolism and Genetic Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Neonatal Health and Biochemistry
Keywords
newborn screening, decision matrix, genetic disorders, feasibility assessment
MeSH terms
Child, Child, Preschool, Decision Making, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, United States, United States Dept. of Health and Human Services, Neonatal Screening, Evidence-Based Medicine, Advisory Committees

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review