Literature DB >> 16882794

State newborn screening in the tandem mass spectrometry era: more tests, more false-positive results.

Beth A Tarini1, Dimitri A Christakis, H Gilbert Welch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The advent of tandem mass spectrometry has made it possible to test newborns for multiple conditions efficiently. It is not known how state newborn screening programs have changed screening practices in response to this technology and how it affects the number of false-positive test results.
METHODS: We obtained data from the National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center regarding the screening practices for each of the 50 states, to determine the number of mandated disorders added to state newborn screening panels between 1995 and 2005. Combining these data with reported specificities from the literature and the number of births in each state, we estimated the number of infants who would have received false-positive results through screening with tandem mass spectrometry in 2005.
RESULTS: The average state mandated screening for 5 disorders in 1995 (range: 0-8 disorders). Wyoming was the only state that decreased its panel size over the next decade. Kansas and Texas were the only states that did not add disorders to their panels between 1995 and 2005; the average state added 19. Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Tennessee each added > or = 40 disorders. Assuming that an individual test for a disorder had a specificity of 99.995%, we estimated that approximately 2575 infants would have received false-positive results through screening with tandem mass spectrometry in 2005. If specificity was assumed to be 99.9%, then the number increased to > 51000.
CONCLUSIONS: State newborn screening programs have expanded dramatically in the past decade. Because the benefit of such testing may be unclear in some cases and because the number of infants who may receive false-positive results and may be labeled falsely as having disease is potentially sizeable, a more cautious approach is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16882794     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2005-2026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  25 in total

1.  False-positive newborn screening result and future health care use in a state Medicaid cohort.

Authors:  Beth A Tarini; Sarah J Clark; Subra Pilli; Kevin J Dombkowski; Steven J Korzeniewski; Acham Gebremariam; Jon Eisenhandler; Violanda Grigorescu
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Introducing new screens: why are we all doing different things?

Authors:  R J Pollitt
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2007-07-06       Impact factor: 4.982

3.  Newborn screening: experiences in the Middle East and North Africa.

Authors:  A A Saadallah; M S Rashed
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 4.982

4.  Agency discretion and public health service delivery.

Authors:  Pamela J Clouser McCann
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-08-17       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  Genetic screening.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Beth Tarini; Nancy A Press; James P Evans
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

6.  Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Pankaj B Agrawal; Donald B Bailey; Alan H Beggs; Steven E Brenner; Amy M Brower; Julie A Cakici; Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy; Kee Chan; Flavia Chen; Robert J Currier; Dmitry Dukhovny; Robert C Green; Julie Harris-Wai; Ingrid A Holm; Brenda Iglesias; Galen Joseph; Stephen F Kingsmore; Barbara A Koenig; Pui-Yan Kwok; John Lantos; Steven J Leeder; Megan A Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Laura V Milko; Sean D Mooney; Richard B Parad; Stacey Pereira; Joshua Petrikin; Bradford C Powell; Cynthia M Powell; Jennifer M Puck; Heidi L Rehm; Neil Risch; Myra Roche; Joseph T Shieh; Narayanan Veeraraghavan; Michael S Watson; Laurel Willig; Timothy W Yu; Tiina Urv; Anastasia L Wise
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 7.  Precisely Where Are We Going? Charting the New Terrain of Precision Prevention.

Authors:  Karen M Meagher; Michelle L McGowan; Richard A Settersten; Jennifer R Fishman; Eric T Juengst
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 8.929

Review 8.  Emerging issues in public health genomics.

Authors:  Dana Dolinoy; Beth Tarini; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 8.929

9.  Newborn screening and early biochemical follow-up in combined methylmalonic aciduria and homocystinuria, cblC type, and utility of methionine as a secondary screening analyte.

Authors:  James D Weisfeld-Adams; Mark A Morrissey; Brian M Kirmse; Bobbie R Salveson; Melissa P Wasserstein; Peter J McGuire; Sherlykutty Sunny; Jessica L Cohen-Pfeffer; Chunli Yu; Michele Caggana; George A Diaz
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab       Date:  2009-09-27       Impact factor: 4.797

10.  Progress along developmental tracks for electronic health records implementation in the United States.

Authors:  David W Hollar
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2009-03-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.