PEDIATRICS Vol. 61 No. 5 May 1978, pp. 740-749
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grover, R.
Right arrow Articles by Davidow, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grover, R.
Right arrow Articles by Davidow, B.

Evaluation of the Expanded Newborn Screening Program in New York City

Ranjeet Grover M.D.1, Doris Wethers M.D.1, Syad Shahidi Ph.D.1, Margaret Grossi M.D.1, Doris Goldberg M.D.1, and Bernard Davidow Ph.D.1

1 Department of Health and St. Luke's Hospital, New York City

Since September 1974, New York State public health law has mandated that all newborn infants be tested for phenylketonuria, maple syrup urine disease, homocystinuria, histidinemia, galactosemia, adenosine deaminase deficiency, and sickle cell anemia in accordance with regulations of the state commissioner of health. During the period from May 1, 1975, to April 30, 1976, a total of 110,180 babies born in New York City were tested for these seven conditions. One year's experience with the screening program demonstrated a paucity of technological problems, low observed rate of both false-negatives and -positives, and the expected incidence of the conditions of highest prevalence, incidentally found during screening: i.e., sickle cell traits, AS and AC. What is equally apparent in reviewing this first year's experience is the extent to which the New York State law, its structure, and implementation have fallen short of the ultimate objective. The major reason for this failure is lack of hinds and facilities in the areas of education, case retrieval, continuing medical care, and counseling. This report is presented with the hope that it will benefit all involved in genetic screening and especially those concerned with establishing similar programs.

Submitted on April 11, 1977
Accepted on August 23, 1977