The magnitude and challenge of false-positive newborn screening test results

被引:113
|
作者
Kwon, C [1 ]
Farrel, PM [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med, Dept Pediat, Madison, WI 53706 USA
来源
关键词
D O I
10.1001/archpedi.154.7.714
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
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, 1:14000; galactosemia, 1:59000; biotinidase deficiency, 1:80000; congenital hypothyroidism, 1:3300; and CAH, 1:20000. 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.
引用
收藏
页码:714 / 718
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] PHENYLKETONURIA SCREENING - FALSE-POSITIVE AND FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS
    CLEMENS, P
    PLETTNER, C
    GRUTTNER, R
    [J]. DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 1983, 108 (16) : 627 - 628
  • [22] FALSE-POSITIVE RESULTS WITH RADIOACTIVE PHOSPHORUS TEST
    SHAMMAS, HF
    BURTON, TC
    WEINGEIST, TA
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1977, 95 (12) : 2190 - 2192
  • [23] Donors' psychological reactions to deferral following false-positive screening test results
    Delage, G.
    Myhal, G.
    Gregoire, Y.
    Simmons-Coley, G-M
    [J]. VOX SANGUINIS, 2014, 107 (02) : 132 - 139
  • [24] Risk of Breast Cancer After False-Positive Test Results in Screening Mammography
    von Euler-Chelpin, My
    Risor, Louise Madeleine
    Thorsted, Brian Larsen
    Vejborg, Ilse
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2012, 104 (09) : 682 - 689
  • [25] FALSE-POSITIVE AND FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS IN THE PYROGEN TEST
    DRESSEL, H
    [J]. PHARMAZIE, 1991, 46 (08): : 582 - 586
  • [26] NBS TEST - FALSE-NEGATIVE AND FALSE-POSITIVE RESULTS
    NG, RP
    TODD, D
    CHAN, TK
    [J]. LANCET, 1972, 1 (7764): : 1341 - &
  • [27] False-positive HIV screening test in a healthcare student
    Quigley, J.
    Hussain, T.
    Arthur, C.
    [J]. OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD, 2024, 74 (03): : 251 - 253
  • [28] Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test
    Baker, Stuart G.
    [J]. STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2011, 20 (03) : 291 - 293
  • [29] ETHAMBUTOL AND A FALSE-POSITIVE SCREENING-TEST FOR PHEOCHROMOCYTOMA
    GABRIEL, R
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1972, 3 (5822): : 332 - &
  • [30] Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test
    Hubbard, Rebecca A.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Smith, Robert A.
    [J]. STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2010, 19 (05) : 429 - 449