• Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2000

    Review

    Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis.

    • M E Merelle, C M Lees, A F Nagelkerke, and C Dezateux.
    • Department of Pediatrics, Free University Hospital, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1007 MB. Marieke.Merelle@azvu.nl
    • Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2000 Jan 1 (2): CD001402.

    BackgroundThis review was performed to test the hypothesis that presymptomatic diagnosis, for example by newborn screening, and early treatment may prevent or reduce irreversible organ damage and thereby improve outcome and quality of life in patients with cystic fibrosis.ObjectivesTo determine whether there is evidence that early diagnosis of cystic fibrosis by means of neonatal screening, followed by current treatment, improves survival and long term morbidity, without unacceptable adverse effects.Search StrategyWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Trials Register. Additional studies were identified by one of the reviewers from handsearching conference proceedings not included in the Cochrane Register. Pharmaceutical companies manufacturing screening tests for cystic fibrosis were also contacted to identify any trials of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Date of the most recent search of the Group's specialised register: November 1999.Selection CriteriaAll randomised or pseudorandomised controlled trials, published and unpublished, comparing screening followed by early treatment to clinical diagnosis and later treatment in patients with cystic fibrosis.Data Collection And AnalysisFour reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality and two of these reviewers independently extracted data.Main ResultsTwo trials involving a total of 1,124,483 neonates met inclusion criteria. A total of 210 patients with cystic fibrosis aged from zero to 11 years with a maximum follow-up of eleven years are included. Concealment of allocation was unclear in both studies. Sequence generation was adequate in one study and unclear in the other. Method to ascertain cases was similar in one study and not similar in the other. An intention-to-screen-analysis was possible in one study, but could not be made due to lack of data and was not performed in the other. Differences in study design, variation in outcomes reported and their summary measures precluded calculation of pooled screening estimates. Only data from one study could be analysed in this review. This study reported a reduced risk of weight and height below the fifth percentile among screened patients (odds ratio control compared with screened group for: weight 6.16, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.44, 15.57 and height 5.03, 95% CI 1. 63, 15.63). Adverse effects among parents in the screened and control populations were examined, but it is difficult to assess how meaningful these results are as the timing of the administration of the questionnaire to each group was not clear. Estimation of direct medical costs of screening suggested it was cheaper to diagnose cystic fibrosis by screening rather than other methods. The costing methods used however were not fully described and costs have not been related to effect.Reviewer's ConclusionsThere are few randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of neonatal screening in cystic fibrosis. From the data available at this time, there is little evidence suggesting benefit from screening for cystic fibrosis in the neonatal period, although there is similarly little evidence of harm. This systematic review has identified the need for individual patient data from both included studies. Although we have not been able to perform a meta-analysis, this review provides a summary of all the information currently available from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.