4.6 Article

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

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 183-187

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.98

关键词

decision making; evidence-based medicine; neonatal screening; policy; policy making

资金

  1. Department of Health and Human Services [U32MC00148]
  2. National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据