This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (48)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Pediatrics, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Charles Kwon, MD; Philip M. Farrell, MD, PhD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:714-718.

Objectives  This study examined for the first time to our knowledge the national data available from newborn screening programs in the United States and determined the salient characteristics of various screening tests for 3 hereditary metabolic disorders and 2 congenital endocrinopathies with emphasis on positive predictive values (PPVs) to delineate the magnitude of false-positive results.

Methods  Reports published by the Council of Regional Networks for Genetic Services for 1990 through 1994 were examined carefully, paying particular attention to phenylketonuria, galactosemia, biotinidase deficiency, congenital hypothyroidism, and congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Because of recent improvements in data collecting, reporting, and tabulating, we used data from 1993 and 1994 to determine the apparent sensitivity, specificity, relative incidence rates, and PPVs for the 5 disorders. For biotinidase deficiency and CAH, we also calculated relative incidence rates and PPVs for 1991 and 1992.

Results  Our analyses revealed the following best estimates for the relative incidence rates of 5 disorders: phenylketonuria, 1:14,000; galactosemia, 1:59,000; biotinidase deficiency, 1:80,000; congenital hypothyroidism, 1:3300; and CAH, 1:20,000. An apparent sensitivity of 100% has been reported by the various states for most of the disorders, and specificity levels are all above 99%. The PPVs, however, range from 0.5% to 6.0%. Consequently, on average, there are more than 50 false-positive results for every true-positive result identified through newborn screening in the United States.

Conclusions  The magnitude of false-positive results generated in newborn screening programs, particularly for congenital endocrinopathies, presents a great challenge for future improvement of this important public health program. Attention must be given to improved laboratory tests, use of more specific markers, and better risk communication for families of patients with false-positive test results.

From the Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Pediatric Residents' Use of Jargon During Counseling About Newborn Genetic Screening Results
Farrell et al.
Pediatrics 2008;122:243-249.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Early Detection of Pompe Disease by Newborn Screening Is Feasible: Results From the Taiwan Screening Program
Chien et al.
Pediatrics 2008;122:e39-e45.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Rapid 2nd-Tier Test for Measurement of 3-OH-Propionic and Methylmalonic Acids on Dried Blood Spots: Reducing the False-Positive Rate for Propionylcarnitine during Expanded Newborn Screening by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry
la Marca et al.
Clin. Chem. 2007;53:1364-1369.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

HIV Screening and False-Positive Results--Reply
Gostin
JAMA 2007;297:948-948.
FULL TEXT  

State Newborn Screening in the Tandem Mass Spectrometry Era: More Tests, More False-Positive Results
Tarini et al.
Pediatrics 2006;118:448-456.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Newborn Screening Technology: Proceed With Caution
Botkin et al.
Pediatrics 2006;117:1793-1799.
FULL TEXT  

Recommendations for Effective Newborn Screening Communication: Results of Focus Groups With Parents, Providers, and Experts
Davis et al.
Pediatrics 2006;117:S326-S340.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Impact of Specific Medical Interventions on Reducing the Prevalence of Mental Retardation
Brosco et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160:302-309.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Content of Communication by Pediatric Residents After Newborn Genetic Screening
Farrell et al.
Pediatrics 2005;116:1492-1498.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Estimation of the false-negative rate in newborn screening for congenital adrenal hyperplasia
Votava et al.
Eur J Endocrinol 2005;152:869-874.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Elevated Urine Pregnanetriolone Definitively Establishes the Diagnosis of Classical 21-Hydroxylase Deficiency in Term and Preterm Neonates
Homma et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2004;89:6087-6091.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Improving Neonatal Screening for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Speiser
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2004;89:3685-3686.
FULL TEXT  

Steroid Profiling by Tandem Mass Spectrometry Improves the Positive Predictive Value of Newborn Screening for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Minutti et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2004;89:3687-3693.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Expanded Newborn Screening for Inborn Errors of Metabolism by Electrospray Ionization-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Results, Outcome, and Implications
Schulze et al.
Pediatrics 2003;111:1399-1406.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Not as Pink as You Think!
Pass
Pediatrics 2003;111:670-671.
FULL TEXT  

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Universal Tandem Mass Spectrometry for Newborn Screening
Schoen et al.
Pediatrics 2002;110:781-786.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tandem Mass Spectrometric Analysis for Amino, Organic, and Fatty Acid Disorders in Newborn Dried Blood Spots: A Two-Year Summary from the New England Newborn Screening Program
Zytkovicz et al.
Clin. Chem. 2001;47:1945-1955.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is Public Health Ready for Genetics? An Unanswered Question
Cunningham et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:1175-1176.
FULL TEXT  

The Importance of Newborn Screening
Hinman; et al.
Pediatrics 2001;108:821-821.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Early Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis
Grosse et al.
Pediatrics 2001;107:1492-1492.
FULL TEXT  

Genetic Counseling and Risk Communication Services of Newborn Screening Programs
Farrell et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:120-126.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT