Counting Conditions on Newborn Bloodspot Screening Panels in Australia and New Zealand

Author:

Heather Natasha12ORCID,Greaves Ronda F.34ORCID,Bhattacharya Kaustuv567ORCID,Greed Lawrence8,Pitt James34ORCID,Siu Carol Wai-Kwan9ORCID,de Hora Mark12ORCID,Price Ricky10,Ranieri Enzo11,Wotton Tiffany11,Webster Dianne12

Affiliation:

1. National Newborn Screening Laboratory, LabPlus, Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora, Auckland 1023, New Zealand

2. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand

3. Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville 3052, Australia

4. Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3052, Australia

5. Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine and Health, Sydney 2035, Australia

6. Western Sydney Genetics Program, Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney 2145, Australia

7. Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia

8. Western Australia Newborn Screening Program, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA, Perth 6008, Australia

9. Newborn Screening Laboratory, Department of Biochemical Genetics, Genetics & Molecular Pathology Directorate, SA Pathology, Women’s & Children’s Hospital, North Adelaide 5006, Australia

10. Chemical Pathology, Pathology Queensland, Herston 4029, Australia

11. New South Wales Newborn Screening Programme, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney 2145, Australia

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.

Publisher

MDPI AG

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3