澳大利亚和新西兰新生儿血斑筛查面板上的计数条件

IF 4 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY International Journal of Neonatal Screening Pub Date : 2024-07-05 DOI:10.3390/ijns10030047
N. Heather, Ronda F. Greaves, Kaustav Bhattacharya, Lawrence Greed, James Pitt, Carol Wai-Kwan Siu, Mark R de Hora, Ricky Price, Enzo Ranieri, Tiffany Wotton, Dianne Webster
{"title":"澳大利亚和新西兰新生儿血斑筛查面板上的计数条件","authors":"N. Heather, Ronda F. Greaves, Kaustav Bhattacharya, Lawrence Greed, James Pitt, Carol Wai-Kwan Siu, Mark R de Hora, Ricky Price, Enzo Ranieri, Tiffany Wotton, Dianne Webster","doi":"10.3390/ijns10030047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A greater number of screened conditions is often considered to equate to better screening, whereas it may be due to conditions being counted differently. This manuscript describes a harmonised Australasian approach to listing target conditions found on bloodspot screening panels. Operational definitions for target disorders and incidental findings were developed and applied to disorder lists. A gap analysis was performed between five, state-based Australian newborn screening programme disorder lists and the single national New Zealand and state-level Californian versions. Screening panels were found to be broadly similar. Gap analysis with Californian data reflected differences in jurisdictional approval (for example, haemoglobinopathies and lysosomal disorders not being recommended in Australasia). Differences amongst Australasian panels reflected varied the timeframes recommended in order to implement newly approved disorders, as well as decisions to remove previously screened disorders. A harmonised approach to disorder counting is essential to performing valid comparisons of newborn bloodspot screening panels.","PeriodicalId":14159,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Neonatal Screening","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Counting Conditions on Newborn Bloodspot Screening Panels in Australia and New Zealand\",\"authors\":\"N. Heather, Ronda F. Greaves, Kaustav Bhattacharya, Lawrence Greed, James Pitt, Carol Wai-Kwan Siu, Mark R de Hora, Ricky Price, Enzo Ranieri, Tiffany Wotton, Dianne Webster\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/ijns10030047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A greater number of screened conditions is often considered to equate to better screening, whereas it may be due to conditions being counted differently. This manuscript describes a harmonised Australasian approach to listing target conditions found on bloodspot screening panels. Operational definitions for target disorders and incidental findings were developed and applied to disorder lists. A gap analysis was performed between five, state-based Australian newborn screening programme disorder lists and the single national New Zealand and state-level Californian versions. Screening panels were found to be broadly similar. Gap analysis with Californian data reflected differences in jurisdictional approval (for example, haemoglobinopathies and lysosomal disorders not being recommended in Australasia). Differences amongst Australasian panels reflected varied the timeframes recommended in order to implement newly approved disorders, as well as decisions to remove previously screened disorders. A harmonised approach to disorder counting is essential to performing valid comparisons of newborn bloodspot screening panels.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Neonatal Screening\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Neonatal Screening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns10030047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Neonatal Screening","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns10030047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

筛查的病症越多,往往被认为筛查效果越好,但这可能是由于病症的计算方法不同。本手稿介绍了一种统一的澳大拉西亚方法,用于列出在血斑筛查面板上发现的目标疾病。我们制定了目标疾病和偶然发现的操作定义,并将其应用于疾病列表。对澳大利亚五个州的新生儿筛查计划疾病列表与新西兰和加利福尼亚州的单一国家版本进行了差距分析。结果发现,筛查面板大致相似。与加利福尼亚州数据的差距分析反映了辖区批准方面的差异(例如,血红蛋白病和溶酶体疾病在澳大拉西亚未被推荐)。澳大拉西亚专家小组之间的差异反映了为实施新批准疾病而建议的时间框架以及删除先前筛查疾病的决定的不同。要对新生儿血斑筛查小组进行有效的比较,统一的疾病计数方法至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Counting Conditions on Newborn Bloodspot Screening Panels in Australia and New Zealand
A greater number of screened conditions is often considered to equate to better screening, whereas it may be due to conditions being counted differently. This manuscript describes a harmonised Australasian approach to listing target conditions found on bloodspot screening panels. Operational definitions for target disorders and incidental findings were developed and applied to disorder lists. A gap analysis was performed between five, state-based Australian newborn screening programme disorder lists and the single national New Zealand and state-level Californian versions. Screening panels were found to be broadly similar. Gap analysis with Californian data reflected differences in jurisdictional approval (for example, haemoglobinopathies and lysosomal disorders not being recommended in Australasia). Differences amongst Australasian panels reflected varied the timeframes recommended in order to implement newly approved disorders, as well as decisions to remove previously screened disorders. A harmonised approach to disorder counting is essential to performing valid comparisons of newborn bloodspot screening panels.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Neonatal Screening
International Journal of Neonatal Screening Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Incidence of Inborn Errors of Metabolism and Endocrine Disorders Among 40965 Newborn Infants at Riyadh Second Health Cluster of the Ministry of Health Saudi Arabia. A Systematic Literature Review on the Global Status of Newborn Screening for Mucopolysaccharidosis II. The Value of Reducing Inconclusive and False-Positive Newborn Screening Results for Congenital Hypothyroidism, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Maple Syrup Urine Disease in The Netherlands. Newborn Screening for Sickle Cell Disease in Catalonia between 2015 and 2022-Epidemiology and Impact on Clinical Events. Prevalence and Mutation Analysis of Short-Chain acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency Detected by Newborn Screening in Hefei, China.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1